Twitter and Facebook need to do more to increase transparency

Analysis: The pragmatic approach taken by the social media giants is finally shifting, writes Andrew Griffin

A group of celebrities – including Rachel Riley and Gary Lineker – have pledged to fight online abuse by refusing to reveal the hateful messages they receive on social media (AFP)

The latest series of sweeping bans of suspicious accounts on social media have launched Twitter and Facebook headfirst into some of the most important and vociferous arguments in the world: the position of Iran on the world stage and the death of Jamal Khashoggi.

It is to the world’s shame that they need to – but the debate that they open up by doing so is one that could prove profoundly valuable to everyone.

Both Twitter and Facebook have now undertaken such blocking campaigns just about everywhere in the world, claiming to have shut down everything from Russian political troll farms to bitcoin scammers. From the serious to the scammy, those accounts all aim to do the same thing: alter our public discourse, by exploiting the digital networks that serve as its home.

In the past, the companies took a more hands-off approach to such behaviour. Controversial political accounts were tolerated, if not accepted, and free speech was the guiding principle.

That was often discussed as a philosophical position – part of Silicon Valley’s historic belief that people should be allowed to say what they want, and that systems tend to regulate themselves. False stories could be stopped by smart readers, the suggestion went.

But it was also a pragmatic one, to avoid getting dragged into discussions that very quickly become difficult. Banning someone means taking a view against them, and even if that is wholly justified then it is likely to lead to outcry.

The response can only be transparency and debate. Companies must – as, to be fair, they have – become more open about who they are banning and why, and then be more prepared to be challenged on those decisions.

The companies have tried to come up with ways to encourage this transparency. Announcements of banning accounts is one way, and Facebook’s recent suggestion of instituting a “Supreme Court” to oversee content decisions is another.

But supreme courts follow the law; nobody gets a chance to vote for the leaders of Facebook or Twitter. The sites may be acting to protect democracy, but their methods serve to remind us they are undemocratic in their own way too.