Should social networks be considered as media outlets in their own right? In his latest book (co-edited with Virginie Martin, researcher and professor of political science at Kedge Business School), Vertigineux réseaux : Enjeux éthiques, cliniques et politiques (Vertiginous Networks: Ethical, Clinical, and Political Issues), Pierre-Antoine Chardel, researcher and professor of social sciences and ethics at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School (IMT-BS), examines this question with his co-authors.
Thanks to the democratization of the Internet and social media, communication has become accessible to anyone with a cellphone or computer. However, in recent years, the most widely used platforms have taken on an increasingly important role in users’ lives, in all aspects from politics to consumption. It is in this context that Pierre-Antoine Chardel, Virginie Martin, and ten other researchers have come together to examine the responsibility of these platforms towards their audience, as well as the role they play in society as spaces for discussion and opinion media.
Individualization and post-truth
To study the impact of social networks on society, we must first look at their effects on users, the people most affected. In the third chapter of the book, Serge Tisseron observes that the “self,” i.e., the personality we expose to reality, is becoming increasingly important on social networks. Everyone uses their specific characteristics to differentiate themselves from others and thus feed their own story on the internet, which is what Serge Tisseron calls subjectivation. This concept can be applied to relationships between people, with each person taking into account the opinion of the other or feeding off it to tell their own story, which is intersubjectivity. These highly personal ways of interacting with the world are greatly facilitated by the functioning of social media.
François Jost points out that this very intimate aspect of discussion on social media is caused by the algorithmic functioning of platforms, but also by the fact that the cell phone is a special object. It represents a physical extension of each person’s self in that it contains a large part, if not all, of our personal information (bank details, identity, photos, videos, etc.). Algorithms, for their part, feed us content every day that is chosen according to our preferences, without concern for informational plurality.
Because of this personalized relationship with social media, users are more sensitive to criticism, especially negative criticism, as it affects their privacy. Platforms are in fact prime locations for the spread of hatred aimed at denying the other. This trivialized hatred goes beyond cases of xenophobia or racism, for example. François Jost calls it “petty hatred.” It is often based on community spirit and is expressed against people who are not part of the group or who do not share the same passions as oneself. Its manifestation is greatly facilitated by the anonymity of users and therefore by their lack of responsibility, which allows them to say or do whatever they want without facing the consequences.
The era of the self on social media
This omnipresence of the self on social media and in society is completely redefining what we call “privacy.” Now, this term no longer refers to life outside the human world, since intimacy is exposed for all to see. With this overexposure of intimacy, the notion of “commonality” is undermined, and truth gradually loses its universal value. It becomes fragmented, scattered, unique to each individual.
Thus, the plausible takes on greater weight and becomes more credible at the expense of facts, and this even reaches the political sphere, which, for electoral purposes, appeals to emotions rather than relying on facts. This is what is known as post-truth: political leaders steer debates towards emotion through strong language, consciously or unconsciously ignoring the true facts. As Mazarine M. Pingeot points out in her chapter, the real danger is not the lie itself, but rather the widespread indifference to this phenomenon.
Social media: opinion-forming platforms?
Social media are not just a means of sharing stories or showcasing oneself. They can also be a place where solidarity and mutual aid are expressed. In their chapter, Pierre-Antoine Chardel and Jessica Yi Yan Wong offer an analysis of these platforms as protest networks that influence physical reality.
While these communication tools are primarily community-based and inclusive spaces that bring people together around shared passions or causes, they also serve to create momentum for action in public spaces. In the case of political protest movements, these platforms can even help bring large numbers of people onto the streets (as was the case in Tunisia in 2011 and Hong Kong in 2019).
These facts highlight the importance of these tools in certain liberation or protest movements, but this always requires political actors who are capable of appropriating the technologies themselves in a sufficiently skillful and inventive manner.
When platforms become judges
But beyond these issues of political protest, there is the question of platform moderation, which must intervene to try to limit illegal content (insults, threats, fake news, etc.) as much as possible. In the tenth chapter of the book, Neil Seghier focuses on Facebook’s moderation. This is easy to understand and gives the moderator two possible responses: immediate removal of the problematic content or tolerance. The definition of what constitutes lawful or unlawful content is often subject to interpretation, especially when geopolitical context comes into play in the decision-making process. This is indeed the case with the coverage of the Russian-Ukrainian war, a subject on which Facebook has decided to leave violent or aggressive content towards Russia online.
This choice is purely subjective; it is a person who decides on the legality of a publication and chooses whether or not to leave the post. We therefore need to be aware that content moderation is a human activity, rethink the way we view social media, and stop seeing it as simply a host for content but rather as a press and opinion-forming body that influences the political views of its users. Finally, and most importantly, we must question the ability of foreign companies to decide what can be said, especially when it comes to unstable geopolitical situations. Given their prominence on social media and in the media, it is essential to re-examine the ethical issues surrounding the role of moderators, who are often invisible.
