Should social media platforms remain private companies or public utilities? — Join The Pulse and Get Both Sides of the Conversation on Trending News.

As Uncle Ben would say, “with great power, comes great responsibility”. Social media platforms have become an inseparable part of our daily lives. It's hard to ignore the giants they have grown into, sparking conversations about how to handle their colossal management and influence. It’s an intriguing dilemma that draws striking parallels to industries like “railroads”. Just like railroads, social media platforms boast massive infrastructure, wield tremendous societal sway, and carry significant economic weight. The big dilemma is whether these platforms should remain in private hands, or is it time to treat them as public utilities?

Have the top social media platforms become so big, so influential, so essential, that there’s an argument they should become treated as public utilities? Social media platforms have woven themselves into the very fabric of our daily lives. They are our news sources, our conversation hubs, our business promoters. But with all that influence, it does start to beg the question that a lot of us have thought but never said…Have they become *too* powerful? And if so, should we consider social media a public utility?

The power of these platforms is not only measured in their billions of users or immense economic clout, but also in their ability to shape public discourse, control information flow, and their deep-seated integration into our daily lives. Their reach is such that many feel there’s no viable alternative. These are the hallmarks of a utility, an essential service.
Making social media a public utility could democratize access, ensure fair treatment, increase accountability, and protect freedom of speech. However, on the other hand, determining what is considered “too powerful” is subjective, and the potential for government inefficiencies and political influences are definitely among many concerns. The debate is complex, but one thing is clear: the decisions we make about the role of social media in our lives will shape the future of our digital society.

We’re switching things up for this week’s Debate Showdown. This past Monday, members of The Pulse community came together on Zoom for a live debate on this very topic.

So, grab your popcorn, we’ll present both sides of what was argued, and you can decide if social media companies should continue their reign as private entities, or if they’ve grown so influential that they deserve to be regulated by the people as public utilities.

Side A: Social media companies are private and they should remain private

Private ownership encourages healthy competition among social media platforms. When platforms compete, they strive to innovate and introduce new features and services to attract users. It's this competition that drives constant improvement and keeps things exciting for all of us.

Private companies can make quick decisions without being bogged down by outdated regulations and bureaucratic processes. This flexibility enables platforms to adapt swiftly to changing user needs and evolving trends in the digital landscape.

Social media platforms are not necessities, and users have the choice to opt-out if they don't find them beneficial.
Nobody is forcing you to use any platform you don’t want to use. Users have the freedom to choose which platforms to engage with based on their preferences, values, and interests. They have the option to opt-out of any social platforms that don’t resonate with their needs and interests.
The global nature of social media makes it challenging to determine a universal threshold for regulation, considering different countries' rules.
How do we determine what the magic number of users or revenue is that constitutes “too powerful”? The threshold for regulation becomes blurry when we consider the global nature of social media. And introducing thresholds like this is a slippery slope for the decline of capitalism.

Compliance with diverse regulations across countries would be an overwhelming task for social media platforms. Different countries have different rules around regulation. It's virtually impossible for social media platforms operating worldwide to comply with every country's specific regulations. Balancing these diverse rules would be a seriously daunting task.

The success of social media exemplifies the rewards of free market capitalism, incentivizing innovation and value creation.
Determining the size or power that warrants public utility status poses challenges and risks undermining capitalism.
What is the incentive for entrepreneurs around the world to innovate and create new platforms if they constantly fear crossing the user threshold that triggers heavy regulation? We don't want to stifle innovation and discourage the next big thing in social media.

Creating a global governance committee to regulate social media may lead to the same biases and ideological influences it aims to avoid… what if this global governance committee also becomes corrupt and begins to push its ideologies on a global scale? Scary.
Managing countries with weak human rights standards poses challenges to considering social media as a public utility.
Expanding the definition of public utilities to include every successful business raises questions about where the line should be drawn… are we going to start considering every large, successful business a “public utility”?

Side B: Social media companies have become too influential and should be treated as public utilities

Social media platforms are no longer just a “nice to have”, they’re a necessity. Access to information and knowledge, quality of life, communication, news, and staying connected. Treating them as global public utilities ensures accessibility, reliability, and fairness for all users, prioritizing the public's needs over corporate interests.
Regulations are necessary to prevent platforms with significant influence from promoting biased ideologies and stifling opposing content or ideas.
Treating social media as a public utility would require higher standards of transparency, data privacy, security, and user consent, safeguarding individuals from potential exploitation of their personal information.
The undeniable influence of social media on public discourse and elections suggests that private institutions focused on shareholder value may not be capable of managing their power. Handing over governance to the people as a public utility ensures democratic oversight.
Considering social media as a public utility does not necessarily mean government control; regulations can be voted on in a democratic manner, similar to managing committees of global utilities.
Social media platforms have reached unprecedented size and influence, with billions of users and revenues surpassing many countries. That is the very definition of powerful. Such power and essentiality warrant closer scrutiny and potential public utility designation.
Lack of access to social media has a similar impact on quality of life as the lack of public transportation. Social media provides access to news, global connections, and opportunities, placing those without access at a clear disadvantage.

Key takeaways from the Live Pulse Debate:

Social media platforms have become integral to our lives, serving as primary sources of news, communication, and connection.
Arguments for social media as private entities emphasize free speech, competition, quick decision-making, user choice, and revenue generation.
Arguments for social media as regulated public utilities focus on accessibility, safety, data privacy, competition regulation, transparency, accountability, and protection of democratic values.
Balancing free speech with the need to address harmful content and misinformation presents a complex challenge.
The long-term sustainability and societal impact of social media platforms require careful consideration.
Stricter regulations can address issues such as misinformation, hate speech, data privacy, and anti-competitive practices.
Ensuring a fair and equitable online environment while protecting democratic processes remains a priority.
Finding a middle ground that promotes innovation, user freedom, and responsible practices is crucial.
An intriguing aspect of the debate was defining what constitutes a public utility. Arguments from both sides focused on clarifying the definition.
An important question was posed throughout: Were we discussing public utilities on a national level, which would introduce variations in quality of life standards across countries? Or were we proposing a global public utility governed by global representatives?
Ultimately, the consensus settled on a global public utility approach.