Why We Should Regulate Social Media Algorithms (Research Paper Example)

**The layout:

(1) Introduce the significance of the issue and what you’ll do in the paper.**

Social media companies profit off the time users spend on their platforms. This has resulted in the development of platforms that are addictive for users. Similarly to cigarretes, social media companies have developed platforms that are both addictive and harmful. How do they get people hooked? They develop highly intelligent algorithms that work to keep users scrolling for as long as possible. These algorithms are subject to much debate due to their emotionless nature, only focusing on driving the most profitable social activity no matter how destructive. This is a public health crisis. It has a large scale impact on the wellbeing of society, resulting in depression and extremism. Regulation in this sphere is a very topical issue. The bill “Filter Bubble Transparency Act” (2021) has already been introduced. This bill would require social media platforms to offer a version of their services that does not provide algorithmic recommendations based of personal data.

In this paper I will discuss if, how and why we should regulate social media algorithms. I will explain how I believe the government has a paternalistic obligation to do so. Acknowledging this is a complex area of public policy, ****I will also consider one of the many possible objections to my view of paternalism in this scenario. 

**(2) Explain the question at issue in more depth.**

Question at issue: Should we regulate social media algorithms? 

To begin to form an answer for this question I will first explain what a social media algorithm is. A social media algorithm is a set of instructions that are coded into apps such as Facebook and Instagram. These instructions use cutting artificial intelligence and machine learning to process the actions of millions of users on their site in order to display content to individuals that will keep them scrolling through their feed. For the most part, these algorithms are impartial to what content they suggest. They do not have emotions or consider emotions, they are purely built to drive engagement. There are many scenarios where this can become an issue. For example, if someone is mildly sad and sees a negative or sad post that resonates with them and then engages with that post (watches it twice, likes, comments), the algorithm will push more and more content of a depressing nature to its user. This can have the affect of making a mild bout of sadness a serious depressive episode. Regulation would involve preventing these suggestive algorithms from being impartial in the nature of content they reccommend.

**(3) Explain your preferred theory of justice.**

Paternalism is essentially an action that limits an individuals liberty or autonomy with the view of promoting their wellbeing (usually without consent). Upon initial examination this seems like a gross violation of personal rights and liberty. However, many of the laws we accept today are naturally paternalistic. Laws banning drinking before the age of 18, laws requiring you to wear a seatbelt while driving. This reveals that paternalism is clearly accepted as a valid justification of government regulation. 

**(4) Show how your preferred theory applies to the issue at hand and what it recommends.**

In the case of regulating social media alogorithms, we are limiting an individuals liberty to engage with social media and go down these “rabit holes” of interest. This approach is a form of impure paternalism. This is when one is engaging in a paternalistic act that indirectly interferes with the agent whos interests we are protecting by directly interfering with a third agent. In this case we are directly interfering with social media companies right to use such algorithms in their applications. I also believe that this approach can be viewd as soft paternalism (in most cases). Soft paternalism is when one is engaging in a paternalistic act towards someone that is incapable of voluntarily making the choice in their best interest for some reason. I beleive that users of these applications are not fully aware of the control social media companies have over what they see and how addicted they become. There is some awareness out there (hence “in most cases”). However, I believe the majority of people are not informed enough on these systems (which are infinitely robust and complex). My view is that governments are justified in interfering with citizens liberty in this case as a matter of paternalistic responsibility for the wellbeing of society. In fact, I beleive that the government have a paternalistic *obligation* to regulate such algorithms. If the governmet do not regulate, the control will be left completely in the hands of for-profit companies. 

Paternalism reccomends that these algorithms be accessed and monitored by a government agency at all times. This agency shall have complete autonomy over what is a ‘legal’ algorithm. This way the paternalistic act of maintaining wellbeing in society can be fullfilled. Of course government agency watchdogs would also be set up to prevent corruption in the regulation of these algorithms. 

**(5) Consider an objection.**

Hard not soft paternalism 

There is a strong objection that claims this is *not* a case of soft paternalism. I have claimed that in most cases regulation of these algorithms is soft paternalism as most people cannot possibly understand the complex nature and affects they have. The objection, which is plausible, says that this is actually a case of hard paternalism. Hard paternalism describes engaging in a paternalistic act towards someone capable of voluntarily making the choice in their best interest. This view claims that people are fully aware of the affects that social media has on them and are completely capable of making the choice to not be consumed by “rabit hole” interests. This complicates the position that paternalism justifies regulating social media algorithms as removing the option of doing something when someone is perfectly capable of choosing otherwise in an informed manner creates tension. It is also morally questionable. If this view is right and people are fully aware of the negative aspects of social media then why is the government justified in intervening with their autonomy. 

**(6) Respond to the objection.**

This objection is reasonable in many ways. However the assumption that people are capable of making the choice “not to be consumed” by social media brings about questions of mental autonomy. Do people really have control of their actions? Can people really know what is best for themselves when their actions are essentially all biased? By nature these addictive platforms are hard to conciously quit. How can one be both informed enough and have strong enough will power to be capable of making a rational decision in their long term interests? It is my personal belief that these questions expose uncertainty in the argument of hard paternalism. One can not truly grasp the subtle nature of these algorithmic suggestions and the long term affect they may have. For this reason I believe that it *is* soft paternalism to regulate social media algorithms in the way I have suggested.

**(7) Conclude.**

Unregulated social media algorithms are in my opinion a looming danger to society as we know it. Their subtle suggestions are beginning to influence public opinion on a macro scale. While these platforms are young, these subtle influences could change the tragectory of society in the long run (quite like the one in sixty rule in aviation). Governments, in my opinion, must take a paternalistic approach and regulate these algorithms. Paternalism is concerned with promoting the wellbeing of its subjects, quite like the duty a government has to it’s citizens. In the interest of societal wellbeing government regulation in this area is a must.