Enshittification” of platforms (
It is crazy how Twitter is overrun with bots and hate speech because Elon can just do whatever he wants. And TikTok is nearing on unusable because of all the ads/sponsored content and its shopping feature. It is frustrating that quality is too much to ask for with ANYTHING.
Therefore it is the company leaders’ fiduciary duty to maximize the profits of the company (called the Friedman Doctrine)
When we think about a company's fiduciary duty in the context of social media companies, we can think about decisions they may make to maximize profit at the expense of their users. One example may be how social media companies sell private information about their users to advertisers.
situation, they outline the following constraints that must be considered when publicly shaming someone in this way:
Reading these considerations have made me realize that a lot of shaming I see online is unfair and is really just bullying. A lot of times the shaming I see extends past the action of the person and instead is about analyzing and shaming every part of the person. Having guidelines helps determine whether the shaking is okay or not.
Therefore a retraction feature could be used by someone who was being publicly shamed as a means of apologizing.
This is an interesting idea for a feature. I see many users do this in a sense, but there’s no guarantee that you will see their apology tweet unless you actively seek it out or see the context of it. So having it attached makes it easier to see what the issue was and how they corrected it.
Gamergate was a harassment campaign in 2014-2015 that targeted non-men in gaming: Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian.
It’s frustrating how gamergate was “allowed” to be carried out/no one put a stop to it because there was “justification.” Video game spaces have excluded women since its inception and gamergate was another way to keep it a male (usually white) dominated space. But as long as these people parade behind these false claims, they can continue their harassment without consequences. Many female video game journalists today still face the consequences of gamergate. This makes me think that the difference between this example and the others listed is who has power in the situation
Because social media spaces are to some extent private spaces, the moderators of those spaces can ask someone to leave if they wish.
I think there tends to be some misconceptions around this; many people think that they can say whatever they want on social media because freedom of speech. In reality, these are private companies (not the gov), so admin or moderators of communities can decide what is allowed and not allowed, therefore in part deciding what constitutes as harassment or not