Can Social Media Platforms Restrain Heads of States
Posted on 03 June 2020; 05:50 PM IST. Last Updated 03 June 2020; 05:50 PM IST.Summary: We live in strange times, where many things we thought we understood very well are changing rapidly, right in front of our eyes. The unquenchable thirst for information, created an extraordinary number of social media platforms, which are controlling all aspects of our lives. Social media platforms have the responsibility to limit themselves to serve the purpose, for which they came into existence, without wandering in unknown directions, and into unchartered territories.
If we rewind the story of our lives to 1970 or 1980, then all we had as media was the good old news papers, and some TV and Radio. News papers typically published full length editorials on the important matters of the society, and reading these on sunday morning (sipping hot coffee), was a hobby for many, in those days. At the dawn of 2000, the internet exploded, and since then social media platforms became primary media servers.
News papers did not have the technology to restrain or place a label or marking on the original draft, released by a public authority. All they could do is cite or refer to the publicly available document, and write a good or bad review over the decisions of authorities. Social media platforms are based on sophisticated digital technologies, and they could restrain or place label on the original draft released by a public authority.
In public administration, the widely practiced norm prescribes that only a "higher authority can assess drafts and can directly place a label or remark over it". News papers/media can write endless reviews, "publish people's feelings and sentiments", by conducting surveys, or by web analytical techniques or by web searches, but they are not entitled to touch the original document i.e place labels over it, or assess a document directly (by itself), without publishing. In other words, social media platforms cannot censor administration, and in reality, the equation goes the other way around, wherein social media platforms are censored by administration.
To avoid the unnecessary friction, social media platforms could possibly "red flag" a particular word/phrase at the time of writing the content, rather than after posting the content. Releasing content for publication is a "significant event or step", in public administration. Similarly, social media platforms could hold publication, merely for the sake of a second check, to help prevent unwanted publications, but cannot restrain the release of documents submitted by a "Head of State".
From a political perspective, it is best policy for a "Head of State", to avoid the use of commercial Social Media Platforms. It may be noted that the time tested practice of "press releases", is devoid of political loopholes and setbacks. If a political party desires to take advantage of the latest web technologies, it could easily get a customized media platform created for itself, instead of relying on commercial platforms, which are typically built for general public, and may not aptly serve high end users with special requirements.