Analyse the difficulties in regulating media in the digital age [15]
P1 - Regulating media is made more difficult due to the specific laws that are followed in different countries. (Livingstone & Lunt)
P2 - Regulating media is made more difficult due to the ability of consumers to voice their outrage regarding the censoring of voices on platforms. (Henry Jenkins - consumers take part in Viewer Activism)
Media regulation is used by governments, media companies, and individuals alike, to protect audiences from content that may be deemed offensive, vulgar, etc. In this modern age, according to the views of Livingstone & Lunt, media regulation is becoming more and more difficult due to a variety of reasons. These issues include how laws on media regulation that differ from country to country make it hard to regulate the same piece of media, and how balancing regulation and freedom of speech becomes far more difficult when audiences have the ability to band together and voice out their opinions. This essay will expand upon and explain how and why these challenges are being dealt with, and the issues that make them increasingly difficult.
First of all, different countries across the world share very different beliefs. This is a logical conclusion due to varying cultures and lifestyles that have evolved in different regions of the world. This difference in beliefs causes a difference in laws too. The most glaring example of countries with opposing views would be the People’s Republic of China, versus the United States of America. The clash in beliefs these countries have has led to 2 very different approaches to regulating media in the digital age. The key to understanding this difference lies in the social media platform Douyin. Douyin is a short-form video sharing app owned by ByteDance one of the largest Chinese internet corporations in the country, which released in China in 2016. Later on in 2018, to cater towards western markets, Douyin made its international release as the app called TikTok. TikTok in the US and in the western world has been criticized for its “detrimental effect on the youth” it has had due to the nature of their videos. Videos released on TikTok tend to be only for the pleasure of the audience. An escape path that may be used to enjoy minutes of euphoria as audiences shut their brain off and watch for hours on end. This has led to massive negative impacts on young users’ mental health, and attention span. However, despite all the criticism, the US government is not capable of removing/censoring the information on the app, due to the protection it is provided under US Law Section 230, which stipulates that the publicly generated content on social media platforms cannot be put under the responsibility of the company operating the platform. This leads TikTok to grow more and more each day, bringing with even more negative effects to all users on its apps. Despite having ‘parental restrictions’, due to the technological literacy of kids in the modern age, they are very easily bypassed, as in accordance with the findings of Livingstone & Lunt. Now, let’s compare this to Douyin in China. Douyin is heavily regulated by the Chinese government as it is not protected under any Chinese Law. The Chinese government has the right and ability to censor any content it wants, and can enforce social media platforms to change their rules and restrictions as the government sees fit. This has led to regulations being places on Douyin that prohibit children under the age of 14 to use the app after 10 pm, and restricts them to only using the app for a maximum of 45 minutes a day. Not only this but the content they see is sent through a heavily filtered algorithm that recommends these users videos that promote their well being, like educational content, PE lessons, and of course, videos that showcase and support the Chinese government. More importantly, these regulations cannot be bypassed whatsoever, as they are built into the apps core. This leads to users of Douyin to have little to no criticisms of the app, especially for children, as it has proved to provide a quite positive impact on their lives. All of this and more should paint a clear picture on how laws in different countries make it harder for media to be regulated.
Moving on, media regulation on other social media platforms have becomes even harder, due to the ability of users to come together and use a collective voice to showcase their backlash against regulation decisions. An example of this would be how the social media corporation Twitter (now known as X, but at the time of the following events was still known as Twitter), banned and removed formed US President Donald Trump on January the 7th, 2021, following his tweets that, according to Twitter, promoted and incited violence against others. This was in the context of the riots that happened at the US Capitol Building before the inauguration of President Elect Joe Biden. Supporters and voters of Trump then decided to storm and raid the White House due to the belief that the election was “Stolen” from Trump. Trump then tweeted on twitter his support of the people that stormed the white house, further pushing his belief that the election was stolen. Twitter, according to their guidelines and terms of service, believed that it had violated the guideline of promoting harmful behaviours, and rightfully banned him from the platform. This caused massive outrage among Trump Supporters, who then voiced their backlash on Twitter by starting a hashtag that reached number. 1 trending on the platform within hours, that advocated for Twitter to reinstate his account. When they didn’t do this, millions of Twitter users vowed to ‘never use the site again’, and when Trump created his own social media platform, “Truth Social”, his tens of millions of supporters decided to move over to that platform instead. According to Henry Jenkins’ theory of fandom, audiences that share the same beliefs about a character or person in the media can come together and voice their support by using the platforms available to them. This was shown accurately by the vast support that Trump received from his loyal followers after his removal from the platform, which had a negative impact on Twitter reputation as a platform for “Free Speech”. This just goes to show how hard balancing freedom of speech and the protection of audiences is, as too much protection may be seen as limiting freedom of speech, and can lead to massive backlash. As in accordance with more findings from Livingstone & Lunt, that suggest a balance of freedom of expression and protecting audiences is extremely difficult for media regulators.
Should media companies be in charge of regulating their own content, or should the government have a bigger role in this, and why?
The government should not be in charge of regulating what goes on on social media platforms. It is a completely different environment and since they're privately owned, it should allow for more freedom. Some laws are vital, like US Law Section 230, that prohibits certain types of content. More restrictions do not help society. This leads to a more dystopian society, like in China.
How does government regulation affect what we see and hear in the media? Can too much regulation stifle creativity and free speech, or is it necessary for protecting the public?
Regulation in some countries plays a large part in what we see. For example in China, almost everything is sent through a filter to see if it should be allowed to be seen by the population. However in more democratic countries, like the US, regulation plays very little in what we see. Especially in social media. In other forms of media like TV though, there are some things that are regulated, however still very little.
Do social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter need more rules and oversight? Or should they be left to regulate themselves? How might this impact our online experiences?
No. They should be allowed to regulate themselves however they see fit. The online ecosystem is so incredibly niche that any sort of government disruption would ruin the experience for most if not all users. People use platforms like twitter for entertainment and the ability to freely see and post whatever they want. Having the government intervene would ruin the quality fo life of users on the platform.
Should schools teach students media literacy? How might this help us better navigate the media we consume, and is it the responsibility of educators or individuals themselves.
No. Media Literacy is most likely something that needs to be learnt by oneself, and should be experienced through real experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment