^{As Uncle Ben would say. With great power, comes great responsibility. Social media companies have become the most influential platforms in the world. They've got more followers than the greatest empires, more cash than countries, and can sway elections with a single trending hashtag. So the question is, are these private businesses? Or should they be considered public utilities?}

The Pulse Results (28 Votes) 📈

Side A 54% - Social media companies are private and they should remain private

Side B 46% - Social media companies have become too influential and should be treated as public utilities

^{Poll closed: May 22, 2023}

Are social media platforms like railroads? The future of Facebook and Twitter could depend on the answer

^{Published: May 18, 2023}

^{Published By: CNN}

Have the top social media platforms become so big, so influential, so essential, that there’s an argument that they should be treated as public utilities? Social media has woven itself into the very fabric of our daily lives. They are our news sources, our conversation hubs, our means for connecting globally. But with all that influence, it does start to beg the question…Have they become *too* powerful? And if so, would considering social media as a global public utility be a better approach to managing their influence?

It’s not just about their billions of users or massive financial power, but also their unique power to shape public discourse, control information flow, and the irreversible integration into our daily lives. Not to mention the gap between the quality of life for people who have access to social media, vs those who don’t. These are the hallmarks of a utility, an essential service.

There's an argument that making social media a public utility would ensure more equal access, a fairer playing field, increase accountability and transparency, and remove bias. However, this also starts to break the foundations which allowed for this sort of innovation and success in the first place, Capitalism and the free market.

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. 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

• How are we deciding what magic number of users or revenue equals “too powerful”? Are we just saying that once a company becomes “too successful”, people can just step in and take control? 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”?
  

• Social media platforms are not necessities and therefore aren’t public utilities. They’re just great businesses that provide a ton of value. Users have the choice to opt-out if they don't like what they see.
  

• If you want to make social media a global public utility, you would also need a global governance committee to manage it. Who is to say this wouldn’t lead to the same biases and ideological influences we're currently concerned about?. What if this global governance committee also becomes corrupt and begins to push its ideologies on a global scale? Scary.
  

• 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 technology.
  

• 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. They can also make quick decisions without being bogged down by outdated regulations and bureaucratic processes.

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.
  

• Considering social media as a public utility does not necessarily mean government control; A global committee responsible for management, that is elected and governed by the stakeholders (users), would mean more accountability and transparency. Not only would there be a push for a more equitable platform, but also the mandate of re-investing profits to continuously make a better product for it’s user base, rather than executives and shareholders.
  

• With all the controversy around censorship, we need to get the power and influence of social media out of the hands of private companies who have proven that they will impose their own ideologies on their platforms.
  

• 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:

• 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.
  

• 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.

Resources:

• Oberlo - How many people use social media

• Understanding social media's influence on the economy

• Britannica - Definition of Public Utility

• The world's tech giants compared to the size of economies

• Reliance on social media in today's society

• Should social media companies be owned by the public

• Twitter is not a utility so it shouldn't be run or regulated as one