The clarion call to regulate social media has grown in the midst of what the World Health Organization calls an infodemic that threatens our chances of emerging from the pandemic as quickly as possible. Such concerns come hot on the heels of suggestions that social media is undermining democracy by helping to spread misinformation and allow outside forces to distort elections and mislead voters.
A recent paper from Yale harks back to a bygone age as it focuses on the health implications of a technology that is incredibly addictive. The researchers argue that the addictive nature of social media not only has health implications but also anti-trust implications.
Forming habits
The researchers argue that anti-trust enforcement has often relied on long-standing assumptions about how consumer welfare is measured. These assumptions don’t work when a product is highly addictive and habit-forming.
In a world of behavioral economics, this lack of nuance is unforgivable, especially as the addictive qualities of social media are often compounded by an inherent lack of competition in the sector. It removes any real incentive for the platforms to change.
“We don’t want to ban cars because they are dangerous, nor would that be a good solution for social media,” the researchers say. “Instead we limit the danger of cars with tools like speed limits, traffic lights, drivers’ licenses, and seatbelts—and we have lots of competition and choice. In digital media we need to find a way to control the stuff that’s harming us, and our children in particular, while keeping the healthy part.”
Smarter regulation
Smarter regulation could fulfill that function and allow for new platforms to emerge and promote healthier competition. The researchers draw parallels with gambling, as both it and social media hijack the reward system in our brain.
This is important as the very business model of most platforms is dependent upon us devoting huge amounts of time to creating and responding to content. The design of the platforms is aimed at being as arousing as possible to keep us coming back time after time.
While the platforms would argue that the amount of time we spend on them is simply a sign of strong engagement, the authors argue that many users wish they could spend less time on social media because of the negative impact it’s having on their lives.
Customer welfare
At the heart of regulation is customer welfare, and therefore enforcement must strive to make life better, whether by making products better, cheaper or indeed both. Traditionally economists have argued that the best way to look at consumer welfare is via the quantity of goods and services in a given market.
“Historically, we have thought of pro-competitive things as being those that increase output and non-competitive things as those that decrease output,” the researchers explain.
This logic doesn’t apply when we’re talking about addictive products, however, as any increase in output actually harms consumer welfare. As a result, the authors argue that regulators need to adopt a far more expansive perspective on consumer welfare that incorporates the specific nature of each individual product.
For instance, where social media is concerned, regulators might look at whether the platform provides incentives that make users more addicted to them. The researchers believe that this wider perspective will allow regulators to both promote competition and innovation as well as user welfare.
“More social media sites means I can choose the site that offers me fewer ads, less addiction, more of the content that interests me,” the authors explain.
While they accept that this future is some way off at the moment, there is a growing appreciation of the harm caused by social media, and a desire for a healthier relationship with the digital technologies that play such a central role in our lives. We’re also seeing regulators in Europe take a more critical view on digital technology, so it is undoubtedly a movement that is gathering pace.
