Social Networks: Legal Regulation or Users Migration
Digital platforms have created a serious dilemma for the flow of information in a democratic society, but the solution to the problem, it seems, depends more on us, the users, than on the adoption of laws and norms regulating their operation. It is not a question of exempting legislators from their responsibility for the information ecosystems that make up our society, but of seeing reality as it is.
Social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, and WhatsApp exist supported by people's adherence to technological platforms created to earn money, with minimal costs, using user data. We are the ones who ultimately determine whether or not a network will grow and whether it will generate profits in which we have no stake.
Regulating the functioning of platforms to prevent them from continuing to function as oligopolies controlled by very few people should be seen as a complementary action to the manifestation of the will of network users. The practice has already clearly demonstrated how the migration of users can end the monopoly of a network, as happened with two emblematic cases: that of our well-known Orkut and that of the MySpace fiasco, which costed a huge financial frustration to Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the mega-conglomerate News Corp.
The Orkut network, created by the company Google, reached 30 million users in Brazil between 2004 and 2014, when it was closed due to a mass migration to Facebook, then in its infancy. The most impressive thing is that in just two years, Orkut was abandoned by 95% of its formerly loyal customers, who came to form 51 million communities through which almost a billion messages circulated.
A similar phenomenon happened with the MySpace network, created in 2003 and which, at the time, was considered as important as the current Facebook platform. Technical problems and leakage of user data undermined the credibility of the network, which in 2011 was sold by News Corp for US$35 million, after having been bought for US$538 million. The fluidity of the mass of users is a structural characteristic of the networks since it is very easy to switch from one to another, a factor that already caused Facebook to panic when the company tried to change the privacy rules and had to back down in the face of the possibility of an exodus of dissatisfied people.
Regulation is a necessary but complex process because it involves lengthy political negotiations, diplomatic maneuvers, complicated legal issues, and a no less intricate assembly of an inspection and punishment system, which inevitably leads to the bureaucratization of procedures. So far, regulatory efforts in other countries have only been partially successful in paying fees for reproducing articles originally published in the mainstream press.
The role of users
In the current political context, the regulation of platforms is basically a decision taken at the parliamentary level, with the peripheral and indirect participation of internet users. We also know that the Brazilian parliament tends to function as a corporate entity, which makes the issue of platforms something that can lead deputies and senators and make decisions that do not necessarily reflect the reality of users. As we are the ones who ultimately decide the future of a social network, any regulation that does not involve the adhesion and concrete engagement of ordinary people tends to lack success and frustration.
The networks apply in relation to the press the same principle of free use of material published on the Internet that is used to justify the extraction, manipulation, and commercialization of users’ personal information. As newspapers act in political/electoral collusion with governments and parliamentarians, they can obtain concessions from networks, as was the recent case of Australia and Google. But the same cannot be said about Facebook’s nearly three billion users, or Twitter’s 400 million customers, for example.
For users, the central issue is the fact that they are subject to a technological form of colonialism since they provide free of charge the raw material that feeds billionaire businesses. The principle is the same as in the colonial era when Europeans took gold, silver, and diamonds from Latin America, Africa, and Asia without paying anything to the local populations.
So far, there are no elements to factually prove the effectiveness of regulatory legislation, although there is a consensus that they are inevitable in the face of the overwhelming growth of the oligopoly of virtual social networks. The phenomenon of user migrations between different platforms has already shown that it works, as shown by the cases of the Orkut and MySpace networks.
The migration of users to other networks will only work if it is also accompanied by the diversification of platforms so that people can choose the ones that are most in sync with their lifestyle and worldview. Some will claim that this can favor the formation of ghetto-type networks, where political-ideological xenophobia can increase, as in the case of Gettr, created by former President Donald Trump. This shows that there is no easy solution to a problem as complex as that of social networks.
But for migrations to be able to re-establish a democratic relationship on the Internet, it is necessary to promote user awareness and information campaigns, an action that governments and non-governmental organizations can develop with a much lower cost-benefit rate than the intricate and complex legislative process.
