In the not too distant past, there was a cost to message others. An ad, a phone call, a poster, billboard or even a gathering requiring a permit. Today, the internet and its open to all at no cost media platform demands no fee to speak, publish and posit. Excluding the price of internet access as that too can be had at no cost, how much is spent to provide the "free" access and who is paying the bill and why would knowing that impact your thinking?
As an example, Facebook (aka: Meta) collected $116B in 2022 revenues primarily from its advertisers which in turn underwrites the free access to its social platform. About $9.96 per subscriber in profit, per 2.91 billion monthly active users. To “moderate and filter” the content posted to the platform, it spends $3.7B annually of its profits on moderators. Given the vast number of its subscribers that equates to $1.27 per pair of eyeballs to assure the veracity, correctness, and safety of everyone for a year. That amounts to $0.003 per person per day. Another content platform providing these “clarifying” services through an outsource vendor in Kenya pays operators $2.20 an hour. Are you OK with these practices as they absolutely affect the content you see and use to make decisions in the markets and in life and that is true for your children as well.
While direct access to these platforms might be free, users do "pay" to acquire personal data that is used for targeted advertising and political propaganda messages. As advertisers are leaned upon the most heavily to fund the social platforms, is there not a quid pro quo in place with regard to who and what is pushed and that which is pushed back? Secondarily, the freedom to voice opinions and make statements of "facts," that would have been overseen by the FCC in the past is now the "responsibility" of the platforms themselves that they must acquiesce to. How much is spent by the platforms to moderate, mitigate and filter all that is said and done online?
Advertisers use their influence on platform policies and content moderation. Social platforms tweak algorithms to prioritize content types that generate higher engagement, benefiting advertisers. Ensuring ads and advertorials are placed next to content that aligns with the advertiser's brand image and ideology, avoiding controversial or offensive material. Content creators have had their videos or posts demonetized when they cover sensitive or controversial topics, impacting the content ecosystem of advertiser, investor and even the government.
The ratio of $100B in ad revenue to Facebook, while only $3.7B was spent on "safety" seems out of balance considering the amount of misinformation abounding online and the potential harm from malicious actors can create. Let’s for argument say that the advertisers realize that controversy while damaging is to be managed, contentiousness brings eyeballs to ads and products and points of view and not to "clean" house is smart business.
The primary objective of for-profit companies like Facebook is to maximize shareholder value, which often means prioritizing activities that drive revenue growth, such as enhancing user engagement and advertising efficacy.
Ours is an Attention Economy where controversial and contentious content tends to drive higher engagement, as it provokes strong reactions, discussions, and sharing. This increased engagement translates into more ad impressions and, consequently, higher revenue for the platform. It also stimulates bias, content suppression and attention deficits.
The discrepancy between the abundant ad revenues and the relatively low expenditure on safety and content moderation reflects tensions within the business models of social media platforms. While controversy and contentious content can drive engagement and revenue, it also poses significant risks to societal well-being. Platforms like Facebook face ongoing scrutiny and pressure to increase their investment in content moderation to better address the challenges posed by misinformation and harmful content.
Unbiased nuancing of ethical, moral, social, cultural and political issues while maintaining the “open” and “free” nature of the platforms are not easily addressed to the mutual satisfaction of all involved given our partisanship positions, there is a great cost to be paid in not doing so.
The influence of the attention economy extends far beyond economic metrics, deeply affecting individual behaviors, societal norms, public opinion, and even political and regulatory landscapes. The platforms have become crucial arenas for political campaigns. The ability to micro-target voters with propagandized messages has transformed election strategies. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, for example, highlighted how data-driven approaches can influence electoral outcomes by targeting voters with personalized political ads and that was before Meta said it was investing $40B in AI despite its 20% loss in share price since 2022.
The 2024 election will have dynamic financial impacts on the market, marketers, and makers of decisions that will have monumental consequences for us all.
More By This Author:
Comments
Log in or sign up to join the conversation.