The future of social networks is in the hands of governments: why this is worrying

Firstly let me clarify the title of this post by stating that I don’t think social networks should be free of government control. When you have a few key players dominating the space, it is only right that people’s interests are protected by those sites conforming to the rules set by the government.

This is the way that the media space has always operated, and should continue to in the foreseeable future. But why we should be worried, is that the gap between government’s knowledge of the media of today, and the actual situation, seems to be widening. Governments – particularly in Europe – have clear concerns over protecting users when it comes to privacy for example, but what is being advocated is at odds with the learnings from social networks themselves, as to what makes a useful and responsible user experience.

If social networks’ control remains in the hands of governments without more collaboration, it could seriously hinder the potential of social media and where we can see it taking us.

Outdated laws

One of the primary issues with how the state seeks to control social media, or technologies overall, is that they are coming at it in the wrong direction. It seems that existing policies are simply being updated to be made to apply to social networking, when in fact what is needed is a complete overhaul of the system when it comes to concepts such as copyright and privacy.

The fact is that these concepts will never be the same again. It is almost difficult to imagine that these concepts will exist at all in the future, as social technology has turned everything on its head. We’re seeing this come into fruition in the music industry right now, which is in a complete mess because old copyright laws that came into existence in the 1700′s are largely still expected to apply today.

Although these have been adapted to take into account developments in technology, such as with the EU Computer Programs Directive in 1991, what we are faced with is a mish-mash of endless amendments and updates. We instead of a complete overhaul that starts with technology at the centre, instead of it dictating changes simply from the peripheries.

And with this comes the concept, untasteful as it may be for some, that while our governments’ motivations may be dictated by the interests and rights of citizens, they may no longer have the knowledge necessary to determine what, in the era of modern technology, these interests are and how they can be protected. This is where we need to see governance enter a new phase, carefully modelled on collaboration.

The era of data

The issue of government control of data and users’ privacy is coming into the fore now because of the increasing amount of data that social networks hold on us. And not only is this growing in volume, but also in type. It is no longer just about browsing history, but social platforms contain varying forms of data that give a complete make-up of our person.

And while this contributes to things such as targeted demographic advertising, which I am an advocate of over seeing irrelevant banner ads, the government of course needs to step in here. Social networks, as privately owned companies will naturally be motivated by what gives them the best profit margin. While this may occur alongside a desire to unite people etc.. we can only (hopefully) trust our governments to develop policies which don’t have this capitalist desire in mind.

Yet what we’re seeing are policies that could seriously hinder the growth of the social networking industry.

Privacy in the EU

The relationship between social networks and the state is coming to a head in Europe right now, as the EU has just unveiled their plans to overhaul the rules on data protection, titled “Regulation on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data”.

The title alone should give a hint that this is perhaps not going to be the most eloquent regulation ever, or that it has been developed with a clear understand of social media. The document contains rules on many aspects of data regulation, but what’s perhaps most worrying is the potential for this document affect privacy laws that in the end are beneficial neither to the indidivual or the sites themselves.

Take for example, the ruling that you may be able to deactivate a profile on one social network, i.e. Facebook and transfer it directly to another one i.e. Google Plus. Now this is of course not clear cut. You created the data, so surely you should have a right to say where it can go? While this may seem like the simple answer, consider the fact that you created this trove of data on a platform that was free for you to use, as the site gained revenue to run through advertising.

If social networks will be enforced to allow users to transfer this data wherever they want, not only does it provide a risk to the user as the rules and context within one social network will be entirely different to another (for example in not having identical options to control who sees that data), it also removes the element of competition between social networks.

Without a desire to create the best social network experience possible, to gather data that can benefit advertisers and attract them to your site, the motivations of networks will become very different. If you have built a business that relies on a currency of data and at any time that data could be transferred somewhere else, it takes away this motivation and furthermore, it hinders innovation. This is what’s seen the social media space grow so rapidly. It has relied on a careful mix of open source collaboration and privacy among site owners that has created some of the best conditions we’ve seen for growth and innovation within industry.

Facebook Speaks

Unsurprisingly, Facebook has made their thoughts on the proposal by the EU clear, through recent comments made by COO Sheryl Sandberg. Speaking at a conference on digital in Munich, she (gently) issued a warning to European governments that they should focus on their economies instead of privacy in social networking. Though the remarks have to be taken in context, given that Facebook potentially stand to lose the most if this regulation is put into place, she made the point that Facebook, and other social networks, are contributing significantly to the economy through providing employment.

When you take the state of the world economy into the equation, it becomes even more worrying that governments are seeking to control social networking in the way that they are. Their aims to clamp down on social media comes at a time when it is one of the fastest growing industries, rapidly proving employment and growth where it’s needed. Again, this is not to suggest that social networking should become a free for all. Regulation by the state is necessary, but it should be encouraging innovation and growth, not hindering it as the recent proposal by the EU seems to do.

Food for thought

Consider also the adverse affect of government control of social networks, which seeks not to protect the user but instead to use what should be a free platform available to all, to extend government rulings. We’ve seen this most recently with Twitter’s decision to censor tweets in certain countries at the request of the government.

Or perhaps even more worrying, consider the concept of government surveillance of social networks, brought to light recently with plans announced by the Chilean government to increase monitoring on social networks, with a company employed to alert the government, for example, when an individual’s opinion on something may change. This sparked a response from Anonymous in June last year, to hack certain sites in Chile and Peru.

This shows the delicate state of relations between social networks and the government, and the need to get it right for both future developments of sites and the rights of the individual.