Governance and social networks

In the book Four Internets, researchers from the University of Southampton Kieron O’Hara and Wendy Hall analyze the different models we can find today regarding Internet governance. One of the most curious aspects they explain is the use of social networks in China. The first thing that surprises is that there is no direct supervision by the Chinese government on what is published, but rather the users themselves self-regulate. In order to avoid problems, users censor what directly attacks the regime, but also behaviors such as the dissemination of rumors or fake news. On the other hand, it is common to find complaints against the malfunction of public services or against corrupt behavior by local authorities.This internal criticism is not only tolerated, but it is a vital source of information for the Chinese regime. It is well known that one of the main problems of any authoritarian state is the lack of incentives for authorities to highlight and correct problems and dysfunctions. If a local organization has a corrupt leader, the supervisor of the area knows that if they report it, they will have to give multiple explanations that could jeopardize their own position. In the end, it is always much simpler to hide it and transmit an immaculate image of what is happening to the superior authorities, even if it is unreal. But this, repeated over and over again, ends up being the worst nightmare of any ruler: having to make decisions with a false image of the country. The Beijing regime has long known that tolerating criticism in these daily aspects and at the local level is the best antidote to this.This tolerance does not equate to recognizing a full exercise of freedom of expression in the country, but it shows us how social networks have a public function that works both for the regime and for the people. In our environment, this function is not so common, for other reasons, because complaints can go through official channels without many problems. What is indeed, unfortunately, common on our networks, in addition to photos of the neighbor's trip or the video of someone charging their phone with a potato, are rumors, bad news, and a lot of aggressiveness. Contents that are what generate the most profit for the owning companies because, unlike in China, social networks here do not have a public function. They are simply a big business.Both models have some positive aspects, but their orientation is perverse: to maintain the authoritarian regime, in the Chinese case, and to maintain a consumerist and hyper-accelerated society in ours. In the literature on this subject, the European Union has long been discussed as a third model that seeks to prioritize the general interest over the business interest, as it has done, for example, with the protection of personal data, which leads to constant confrontations with large North American tech companies. Despite resistance, the European protective model is gradually consolidating, it is imitated by other countries, and it would be good if it were strengthened in other matters, such as the use of AI. Taking advantage of the fact that May 9th is Europe Day, and seeing how the internal enemies of the EU are becoming increasingly vocal, it is not in vain to remember the values and strengths of our continent and, even, to show a certain pride in it.