The Social Media Ethics Debate: Are Platforms Inherently Harmful or Merely Tools?
In response to Frances Ryan's recent article questioning the ethical use of social media given its often toxic environment, readers have offered diverse perspectives on whether these platforms are fundamentally problematic or simply reflect the values of their creators and users. The discussion highlights how social media, like any technological tool, can serve both beneficial and harmful purposes depending on its implementation and usage.
Platform Design and User Experience Shape Outcomes
Randy Fair from Wilton Manors, Florida, acknowledges the dual nature of social media, noting that while his initial efforts to promote books on Bluesky didn't increase sales, the platform enabled him to share important information about legislation like the Save Act and help a researcher gather participants for a survey on gender-affirming care. He emphasizes that "the platform is only as good as the people who run it," citing the example of UpScrolled, an Australian app designed by Issam Hijazi to prevent user addiction by limiting feed content. Fair concludes that social media's impact is determined by the moral values of both designers and users, rather than being inherently good or evil.
Arguments for Complete Abandonment
In stark contrast, Ruth Tanton from Bristol argues that there is no ethical dilemma for many people, describing social media as "contrived and controlled by greedy and malevolent tech oligarchs" that serves no benefit. She points to individual psychological harm, damage to personal relationships, and broader societal impacts as evidence that using these platforms is unethical. Tanton, who has never used social media, suggests that adults should set better examples for young people by logging out permanently, noting that her teenage children show no interest in these platforms either.
Alternative Platforms and Regulatory Solutions
Colin Macleod from High Barnet, London, recommends Mastodon and the broader Fediverse as ethical alternatives to mainstream commercial platforms. He explains that these systems were created by minority groups uncomfortable with mainstream platforms and operate without advertising or commercial pressure to exploit users. Users control their experience by choosing whom to follow, without opaque algorithms determining content visibility. While acknowledging it might take longer to find relevant content, Macleod believes this approach is "well worth it" for those seeking less toxic social media environments.
Paula Barnett from Manuka, Canberra, shares her experience of leaving social media after experiencing online abuse in a Facebook gardening group. While she doesn't miss the platforms and enjoys real-world connections in retirement, she recognizes that leaving might be difficult for those who are time-poor or homebound due to disability or caregiving responsibilities. Barnett advocates for better regulation through legislation and ethical site management rather than complete abandonment.
Personal Experiences and Practical Considerations
Pat Ready from Welling, London, describes leaving Facebook shortly after Mark Zuckerberg removed fact-checkers, finding relief in escaping unnecessary content despite missing some useful gardening and naturalist forums. Meanwhile, Pete Bibby from Sheffield offers a historical perspective, comparing social media to pen and ink tools that can be used for both constructive communication and poison pen letters, suggesting that "social media are merely the medium not the message."
These responses collectively illustrate the complex ethical landscape surrounding social media use, with some advocating for complete rejection, others promoting alternative platforms, and many emphasizing the role of human values in determining whether these digital tools ultimately serve beneficial or harmful purposes in society.
