The Social Contract and Social Media Now
They must embrace a fundamental idea, once introduced by Grotius and Hobbes, and later developed by Locke, Rousseau, and Kant the social contract in which people give up absolute individual freedom in exchange for a particular shared security. Hobbes defines a contract as the "transfer of rights." In the state of nature, everyone has the right to everything - there are no limits to the right to natural freedom.
The commonality of the social media platforms is so prominent that a regular internet user could not even search on the internet without stumbling across the slightest glance into an online phenom.
Let us look at the law society of NSW's statistics. We can generally get the idea that there are around 500 million active Facebook users, 120 million YouTube videos to watch, around 75 million users on Twitter, and around 900,000 legal professionals on LinkedIn.
Although the social contract is known for its ability to give us safety and freedom as long as we are willing to give up a small amount in return, social media platforms do not entirely safeguard against harmful individuals.
They only give users the option to prevent harmful material from entering our feeds. However, regular users are not always tech-savvy, leaving them venerable.
Consequently, social media cannot ensure its users' safety, unlike the social contract, backed by the three arms of power in Australian law, which upholds individual safety.
Comparatively, the shift of actual communication to the virtual sphere has influenced interpersonal relations. For the last two decades, the critical spheres of human existence have globally changed. They have primarily been virtualized, transferred from a simple life form to a digital and simulative one.
In this sense, the information age has not only united people into a uniform network system but changed the essence of their communication and relations. However, this technological leap's consequences have changed human relations, generated a unique electronic form of culture, and induced new existential and ethical problems that a modern person must solve.
Are the existential and ethical problems that everyday individuals face, like in the case of Entick v Carrington where the judgment was found to accuse and convict messengers for trespassing. Nevertheless, social media users allow other users to scroll over their private accounts to see if they know each other. However, the case between Entick v Carrington was an actual piece of property one can call their own.
Comprehensively, our social media accounts are not respected enough to claim the same as the Entrick v Carrington case.
Comparatively, we can look at the study done by the international journal of Technometrics,
With 1,3717 billion users monthly, Facebook is the dominant social network and is analysed in around 130 of the 137 countries; it has around 410 million users in China alone. The giant social networks allow thousands of unfamiliar users to Interact with real life. They are aimed not at the quantity of communication but quality and search for new ways to attract users.
Looking at what the founder of the social network path had to say concerning this, D. Morin concluded that people had lost the private space for social media networks, including Facebook and its ever-growing popularity.
Although these are merely a small selection of the vast and ever-changing platforms to which social media has on offer, they all have one element in common; they thrive on user-generated content.
Consequently, the outcome of this ordinary user-generated content is that countless opinions on the content allow conversations to represent an argument at the local pub instead of a well-thought-out conversation between individuals.
Comparatively, these interactions between users could instead resemble a democratic liberal interaction that can be equally viewed to create diversity in the community and the online community as it is becoming ever so favorable.
The rule of law
Are the ever so Favorable social media platforms affecting how the Australian law services the community and its safety?
While Australian law is a diverse set of rules set by the government, social media standards are rules that individuals should accept.
However, many social media platforms do not abide by these rules, resulting in insufficient equality between individuals and disregarding the laws laid down by the Australian government.
Conscious that many individuals on social media never fully understand the laws that are to be abided by, although Australian law is founded on British rule; certain parts of the Australian law changed over time to adapt to Australia's state territories.
Expressing differences in communication between individuals cannot produce democracy within a society, so developing the theory that mediated communication must stop considering "lean" rather than "rich" only allows motionless entertainment, which lacks diversity.
Moreover, it remains a constant reminder of the sense of community that we all aspire to: the central problem generated by the sense of community is that, unlike the weapons of Australia's law of power, these social institutions have no formal treaty in place.
Consequently, we cannot adopt social networks so that "these behaviours disappear entirely from the views of others. However, social networks can advise their users to prevent such harmful behaviours and withdraw access from users who wish to engage in such disruptive behaviours.
Although social networks have recognised communities' concerns, they cannot impose further sanctions due to insufficient misunderstandings and conflicts between individual countries' laws.
In summary, social institutions are rapidly gaining followers. They have observed an increase in anti-social behaviour between individuals over the years, prompting the community to call for more social contract sanctions.
Although the social contract that somewhat defines the Australian public law can restrict individuals' liberties, social media platforms can only advise their users, leaving them open to anti-social behavior.
According to the Australian Law reform, the right to freedom of opinion is the right to hold opinions without interference and not be subject to any exception or restriction.
Analysis of the above statement finds some truth in the claim to hold opinions without interference. However, analysing the aspect, it is not valid concerning hurting another for the law states that.
Committing an act of violence against another person is against the law in Australia. Assault is a criminal offence, and the penalties are severe. It is against the law to be violent towards any person – a man, woman, or child. Are the freedoms given to individuals on social media only creating an online world that does not restrict users from violently assaulting another, even if it is only words?
According to Ju. Habermas, the human lifeworld in modern society, is fundamentally changing as it is greatly affected by external systems, including money and power, along with utilitarian and hedonistic practices. In the view of Ju. Habermas, the human lifeworld in the information society, is significantly influenced by the complications of the communicative structures and their nature of remote-acting, forming the person's world more open for social system pressure.
The current virtual communication level lacks control that modern law can achieve, although individuals still prefer to communicate online even though the risk of violent behavior is still prevalent. Modern control does not allow individuals to find the communication freedom they seek this freedom, only allowing for the remote transfer of feelings and remains illusory.
Although the various forms of social communication and the specifics of the various social networks offer the author a way to communicate with unknown individuals, they are still exposed to everyday problems and features' existential natures.
This existential nature is concerning the powers of Australian law just because social media believes we are free to have an opinion without interference among the conversations. However, such conversations in the community would be known as a criminal offence and punishable by law.