How Social Media's Business Model Fuels Disinformation: Is It Time for a Better Solution?

Who could avoid hearing about the claim made by a former U.S. president, who falsely asserted that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio? This blatant disinformation led to real-world consequences: bomb threats, school shutdowns, and a spike in xenophobic rhetoric in the community. It's a reminder that misinformation isn't just a problem confined to online echo chambers; it has tangible effects in the real world.

This incident made me reflect on the broader responsibilities of social media companies in curbing the spread of false information. It's clear that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have immense power over the information we consume. But are they doing enough to ensure that what spreads on their platforms is true?

The Fine Line Between Free Speech and Misinformation

Social media platforms have historically walked a fine line between upholding free speech and preventing harmful disinformation. The First Amendment ensures freedom of expression, and rightfully so, but as private companies, platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube are not legally bound by it in the same way. Instead, they establish their own community standards and content guidelines.

However, these companies have often struggled to consistently apply those standards. In cases like the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand, the perpetrator livestreamed the attack on Facebook. It took hours before the video was removed, but by then, it had already been shared and reposted across various sites. This delay allowed the horrific event to be broadcast to millions, contributing to the shooter’s goal of spreading fear and hate.

Similarly, in Myanmar, Facebook was used to spread anti-Rohingya propaganda, exacerbating tensions and contributing to the brutal killings of thousands. These failures demonstrate the consequences of allowing harmful content to spread unchecked and show why social media companies must be held accountable when their platforms are used to incite violence.

?

The Public Health Crisis and Social Media's Role

Misinformation isn’t just a political or social issue—it's also a public health crisis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we witnessed how misinformation on social media directly impacted people’s decisions about their health. Claims that vaccines were unsafe or ineffective were shared and amplified on social media platforms, leading many to avoid vaccinations. As a result, communities were left vulnerable to the virus, prolonging the pandemic and increasing death tolls.

One of the most widely spread falsehoods was the idea that the COVID-19 vaccine contained tracking devices or altered human DNA. These baseless claims gained significant traction on platforms like Facebook and YouTube, where algorithms often promoted sensational content because it drew more engagement. Despite attempts to flag or remove some of this misinformation, the damage was already done. Vaccine hesitancy surged, contributing to the preventable loss of thousands of lives.

This highlights the deep responsibility social media platforms carry when it comes to controlling the flow of disinformation, especially when it leads to public health risks.

The Conflict of Interest: Can Social Media Companies Check Themselves?

One of the biggest challenges in ensuring truthful content on social media is that these platforms are not be the best entities to police themselves. Their business models are driven by engagement—often prioritizing content that generates the most clicks, views, and shares over content that is factual or responsible. This "attention economy" inherently rewards sensationalism, even if it means allowing harmful or misleading content to circulate longer than it should.

Take, for example, Facebook’s internal research leaked in 2021, which revealed that controversial and inflammatory posts were more likely to boost user engagement. Even though the platform knew this, it struggled to balance the drive for profit with its responsibility to curb disinformation. This tension between business incentives and ethical responsibility raises the question: can we really expect social media companies to be the sole gatekeepers of truth?

There is an argument to be made for the creation of independent third-party organizations that focus solely on verifying the truthfulness of content. These companies could act as impartial watchdogs, offering transparency reports and collaborating with platforms to ensure that content moderation is not just reactive but systematic, unbiased, and driven by veracity rather than profitability. Much like how financial audits are conducted by external firms to ensure integrity, social media platforms could benefit from external fact-checking entities that have different constituents and shareholders.?

By leveraging technology like AI and machine learning to flag and identify misleading or harmful content, and combining that with human oversight, this new kind of company could help ensure that platforms maintain a healthy balance between free expression and truthfulness, while reducing the risk of harmful misinformation spiraling out of control.

The Way Forward

Social media companies are at a crossroads. They wield enormous influence over the information people consume, yet their systems have often been shown to promote the very content that can harm individuals and society. While they have implemented some measures, such as fact-checking partnerships and content moderation algorithms, these actions are often reactive and insufficient to prevent the widespread consequences of disinformation.

As we move forward, we need to reconsider who is responsible for maintaining the integrity of online content. Is it time for independent oversight, or even a new type of company, focused solely on holding social media platforms accountable? The stakes are too high to leave these questions unanswered.