What About Social-Media Neutrality? Facebook’s algorithms have monopoly power,...
What About Social-Media Neutrality?
Facebook’s algorithms have outsize power, both culturally
and economically.
By Daniel Gallant Jan. 28, 2018 4:43 p.m. ET
Most arguments about “net neutrality” neglect an
important reality: The internet most of us use is already far from neutral,
thanks to the profit-focused algorithms and opaque content guidelines by which
social-media companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram govern their
sites.
Through these personalized online portals, we read news
stories, share videos, learn about our friends’ lives, and discuss social
trends. But these platforms don’t treat all content equally or distribute it
fairly. Facebook and Instagram manage content in a decidedly non-neutral
manner, using pay-to-play tactics that favor deep-pocketed advertisers and
marketers versed in content targeting.
Whereas some paid promotions reach millions of Facebook
and Instagram users, these platforms’ policies ensure that most unpaid content
reaches few. Many Facebook users have seen the audience response for their non-promoted
posts shrink recently. If your holiday posts received half as many likes as in
past years, it isn’t necessarily because your content is stale or your friends
have lost interest. Instead, the platform you use might have changed its
algorithms to compel you—and the entities vying for your attention—to spend
more on posts. Even if you’re an amateur photographer or a recreational
blogger, and particularly if you’re a sole proprietor or small-business owner,
Facebook wants to convert you from an “organic” user to a paying customer who
boosts posts and buys ads.
For the past decade, I’ve used social media to market
arts programs for the Nuyorican Poets Cafe, Arts Japan 2020 and other
organizations. Social-media marketing has undoubtedly improved the fortunes of
these small businesses and nonprofits, as well as many other institutions. But
the platforms we use are fickle. Even experienced online marketers can be
stymied when Facebook and Instagram tweak their algorithms to favor one type of
content over another, to reduce the impact of posts from certain groups, or to
prioritize paid material in a new way.
If you post a Facebook update without “boosting”—paying
for it—the post may reach between 1% and 5% of the people who like your page.
It probably won’t be seen by anyone who doesn’t already follow you on social
media, unless a bunch of your fans or friends repost it. But if you boost that
same post for $10, Facebook will show it to hundreds or thousands more
customers. Even then, your post could languish in obscurity, if it fails to
meet Facebook’s opaque content guidelines, which have been known to filter out
innocuous material (Christmas cards, the names of certain cities) while
allowing fact-challenged content from extremists to flourish.
The visibility of posts varies tremendously, depending on
how desirable the target audience is to various advertisers. Five dollars might
allow you to reach 50 big-spending New England Patriots fans or 2,000
unemployed students. The cost to reach a particular audience shifts constantly
and is not disclosed until after your ad has run.
Facebook’s non-neutral landscape is inscrutable and
forbidding. Trial-and-error experiments help businesses and nonprofits improve
their return on social-media investment, but many small entities can’t afford
to do market research. Some companies give up on social media advertising
entirely if their first campaign fails. It’s frustrating to learn that your
value as a customer and your expenses as a marketer fluctuate at an algorithm’s
whim.
Facebook claims to have improved transparency and
enforcement, especially since the revelations about election-related posts from
Russia and elsewhere. Recent tweaks, according to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, will
democratize the vetting of news items and offer Facebook users “more meaningful
social interactions.” But we have no way of knowing the extent or soundness of
a corporate entity’s policy reforms. We do know that Facebook’s experiments
with shifting content guidelines sometimes hurt free speech and small
businesses’ finances.
As social-media activity continues to dominate internet
use, the survival of small businesses and nonprofits will increasingly depend
on their online marketing strategies. And social-media companies offer powerful
tools to help organizations compete.
But considering their huge impact on the finances of
companies large and small, on the political system, and on every aspect of our
interpersonal relationships, social-media platforms shouldn’t be left to
corporate self-policing. They should be regulated, ideally by a committee of
representatives from the corporate, nonprofit and government sectors.
Regardless of whether net neutrality protections
continue, regulation of social-media platforms could help even the online
playing field and foster innovation, creativity and free speech while guarding
against malicious manipulation of content. Without regulation, the internet’s
most sprawling content marketplaces will continue to favor deep pockets and
endanger free expression.
Mr. Gallant is executive director of the Nuyorican Poets
Cafe and a social-media marketing consultant.
Comments
Post a Comment