If you search any photo repository for the term social networks, you will find thousands of images of people smiling, of a carefree world in which communication between people has created a kind of media paradise, a happy society.
The reality is a little different from this image, perhaps inherited from past times. The Internet has become an increasingly strange place for everyone. Finding what you want, despite the meteoric and apparent effectiveness of the search engine, is increasingly difficult. Divisive, hate speech, polarization, scams, fake news, now, fake photos and videos that look real are starting to turn the public arena into a place for mistrust. How we got here? Do you have a solution?
Six years ago, a report by the UK's Royal Society for Public Health concluded that "social media is more addictive than tobacco and alcohol" and revealed that rates of anxiety and depression among British youth had increased by 70% in the last 25 years. In the globalized world, the UK is not an island. The work, drawn up by experts, linked these problems to the use of the platforms, to which he attributed the fact of having created new cognitive biases that affect both young people and adults.
In social networks, the situation has worsened in recent months. X, the platform that was once called Twitter, today offers timelines of messages full of irrelevant posts that repeatedly revolve around topics that, in many cases, do not interest the account holder. The algorithm takes us where it wants, and Elon Musk is its shepherd.
Social networks have never been charitable organizations responding to the interests of idealistic pioneers of the Internet, such as the inventor of the web, Tim Berners-Lee, a supporter of a free space of communication. The platforms that communicate with us in a global way are behind companies in the hands of shareholders - or an impulsive owner like Musk - who do not have among their goals connecting people. The legitimate goal is to make money. What can become illegitimate is the way to achieve it.
"We are at a point where the idealistic expectations of the beginning of social networks have become very distant. The expectation has been exceeded by the reality and we have been becoming aware of some of the negative effects", says Ferran Lalueza, professor of Communication Sciences at the Open University of Catalonia (UOC).
Scandals for bad practices dot the history of Facebook, now inside the Meta matrix. "We are in the hands - notes Lalueza - of a few people who do not act guided by the common interest, but by the desire for profit, or at least by instinct and caprice". As has happened with X, "algorithms and things as consolidated as the number of followers and interactions can change from one day to the next". In this context, having payment accounts can make a difference.
Despite the fact that they depend on private companies, which act almost always without control, their social reach is so widespread that part of the communication of public authorities is linked to social networks. "When there is a disruptive technology that is not regulated, little by little we are looking for ways to have it under control", explains Luis Miller, PhD in Sociology and senior scientist at the CSIC's Institute of Politics and Public Goods, who observes that "this is not what is happening with the networks".
"The states go along and use the networks like any other citizen - he points out -. As a result of the interaction that networks seek to obtain more data from each user in order to offer them segmented advertising, polarization increases and a false sense of proximity is created between the administration and citizens, although in the physical world the problems continue feel the same".
"This mistake - points out Josep Lluís Micó, Professor of Journalism at Ramon Llull University - has been made by almost everyone". "Many companies and institutions have given themselves lightly to fostering communication through social networks and, the moment they adjust the algorithms, they run the risk of being irrelevant". In any case, it should be noted that there are no companies or institutions that do not have a website that can cover some of the most basic needs.
Networks are now exploring new subscription paths. Musk has been desperately trying to get a critical mass of users to join the premium service for a year now, and has just announced two new payment methods, while launching a new $1 payment experience in New Zealand and the Philippines annual, justified as a way to combat bots – accounts controlled by a software –.
For its part, Meta is now considering charging around 13 euros a month to users in the European Union to use Facebook or Instagram, a formula with which it hopes – possibly wrongly – to avoid the EU's imposition that the receipt of advertisements Custom can only be optional.
If you pay, you avoid advertising. If not, they track you in your digital life, so with the data, they will sell you ads. However, this approach seems to be designed to avoid pressure from regulators, because the subscriptions would not be able to compensate for the high income they get from the advertising market.
Lalueza observes of social networks that, "if one thing has been proven during their short history, it is that they need regulation". "Public administrations - he indicates - have begun to understand the need to regulate, although sometimes they fall short in exercising real control". It must be considered that these platforms "are very powerful de facto powers and the administration is in tow of reality". "Understanding the reality, there has been a certain carelessness and negligence when it comes to regulating and controlling them".
An idea that is raised in some forums is that the administrations have some intervention mechanism, disregarding the fact that there are social networks created by the public sector.
Miller believes that "a public social network would cause a lot of rejection by people who, on the other hand, have no problem giving all their data to certain private companies". "The states - he insists - are late. The way to approach a solution is more regulation than direct participation". In any case, he thinks that everything "looks bad" and points out that "we are far from putting a limit to the most negative effects" of social networks, such as the influence on the suicide rates of young women.
Micó points out that, in addition to administrative regulations, "it is important to enhance citizens' self-awareness, responsibility and maturity". “If I am deceived once, it is the fault of the one who deceives me; if they cheat on me fifty times, it's my fault", he concludes.
Despite the negative effects of the profit-maximizing business model and the addictive nature of networks, public scrutiny and user awareness are urgently needed.
