[ad_1]
Since the Ministry of I & B has withdrawn Whatsapp for the growing threat of false news in India, different solutions have been proposed from different sides. The latest one is a call to force Whatsapp to close until it solves the problem, coming from Vivek Wadhwa a Distinguished Fellow of Harvard Law School and the University of New York. Carnegie Mellon University
Men pose with smartphones in front of the Whatsapp logo displayed in this illustration. Image: Reuters
In particular, he refers to the techniques used by these social media companies to keep users addicted and dependent on these companies for their news, which in turn maximizes their profits. He argues that it is necessary to encourage these companies by putting these profits at stake, closing them up until they find solutions to threats like fake news.
How Companies Use Technology to Keep You Addicted
For some time now, reports have been published on how technology is being used to keep Internet users hooked. Tristan Harris, in this essay describes several of them. Consider a slot machine game, which is designed so that you only get rewards once in a while. So, every time you pull the lever, you actually get the reward, of varying amounts, only at random intervals. The result is that in anticipation of this random reward, which, although random, is frequent enough for you not to lose interest, you continue to pull the lever over and over, and in the end , end up getting hooked.
for example, work in the same way, with the really relevant information scattered randomly in your list, resulting in the same addictive effect. The fear of missing something important, for example, is one of the psychological factors that cause people to keep scrolling through this list.
WhatsApp specifically, uses factors like the interruptive nature of WhatsApp notifications on your smartphone, with methods like renting the other person knows when you read his message, or when you type. These factors, on the one hand, encourage people to continue to check their phones for notifications, and on the other hand, urge them to continue answering instantly.
Put Facebook, Whatsapp profits at stake
Given that companies like Facebook and Whatsapp are actively using these psychological and addictive methods to increase their use and hence their profits, Wadhwa argues that this fact should be used to put these same endangered profits until they solve the problems created. He argues that companies like Facebook have designed their news feeds so that people are, first, dependent, and second, depend on these companies for their news, without assuming any responsibility for accuracy or accuracy. authenticity of this news. Thus, he argues that Whatsapp should be closed, putting his profits at stake, until he can find a solution.
Representational image
Is Whatsapp justified? [19659006] The argument certainly has merits, but the question arises as to whether the closure of the company in question is the solution, and further on there is a justification in the WhatsApp selection for that . The problem of false news and the spread of rumors is much more widespread. Closing all these companies to cut their profits until they find a solution to the fake news would mean closing a wide range of social media platforms, communication platforms, websites and even corporations. 39, information and media. It would be, in many ways, similar to the fact that the government completely shut down the Internet to fix such problems
Can a threat to profits through regulation help?
However, it is undeniable that a threat to businesses Profits push them to act. An example of this is with the privacy laws that, in India, were mostly self-regulating and a failure. However, the GDPR, with its 4% fine in annual global business figures, has led every company to comply with privacy, but only for their European customers.
Contentious of regulating online content
Imposing fines by regulation, However, comes with a price. The regulation of online content is a very controversial issue. The call of the I & B Department to regulate online content a few months ago sparked widespread fears about the threat that this would pose to fundamental rights and freedom of movement. expression of people. The fear of censorship and a new Article 66A are the first of these. The online content industry itself has much resisted the idea of greater accountability than it already has, given the huge volumes of content generated per second.
Dealing with copyright infringement online by the threat of profits
A threat to profits and incomes creates solutions that were previously considered impossible. Consider copyright laws and YouTube. YouTube is protected as an intermediary by the copyright laws and the Internet and its sole responsibility with respect to counterfeit online content is to remove it when the content is brought to its attention .
copyright infringement, however, forced YouTube to assume greater responsibility, for fear of further prosecution. Although the Viacom trial was finally settled out of court in 2014, this led to the creation of ContentID to help YouTube monitor illegal content. ContentID as a system is itself mounted with problems, but clearly, solutions can even be found to regulate online content.
Another similar example with YouTube was the boycott [20179004] of advertisers like Verizon and Walmart . their advertisements are shown with extremist content and hate speech. Even this has led to changes in YouTube's action against online content. Obviously, greater responsibility on the part of these companies is possible, given the good incentives.
False news and resulting deaths are a collective failure
Imposing responsibility on social media like Whatsapp is possible and is certainly important, but that can not be the only solution to a problem like the false news.In contrast to the problem of Cambridge's Facebook Analytica, which is almost entirely a failure on Facebook's part, the false news and the resulting deaths are a collective failure.
The importance of role of social media in the broadcast information is a negligence of other factors responsible, in particular, that the news is not created by them, nor the deaths caused by them. As noted by Apar Gupta here other responsible factors include the lack of an appropriate law against lynching or a government willingness to enact it and the fact that many victims are from minorities and nomadic tribes
for a collective solution
The problem of false news is much deeper, and highlights the failure of many social media companies to have not assumed the responsibility to control or to spread the news, the government not to have prevented the murders or accusing the guilty parties of the legislature of not having enacted the required laws, and also of the people themselves to spread such news and to believe it blindly. The responsibility to solve it can not therefore be imposed on a single entity.
To solve the problem of online content, social media companies, government, researchers, technology developers and innovators must come together. Initiatives such as that of Superintendent of Police Rema Rajeshwari to tackle false news by educating people should be encouraged. The question is collective and the solution must be too
The author is a lawyer and an author specializing in the fields of technology, privacy and cyber- laws. She is also a certified privacy professional.
[ad_2]
Source link
