Tech Giants Under Scrutiny: The Impact of Billionaire Control on Social Media Integrity

In a week marked by significant shifts in social media policies, LSE Professor Shakuntala Banaji has raised concerns about the growing proliferation of hate speech and disinformation online. Recent decisions by major tech companies are creating what experts describe as a dangerous new landscape for vulnerable communities.

Meta’s announcement to end its third-party fact-checking program for US content and loosen moderation policies has drawn sharp criticism from researchers and human rights advocates. The company, led by Mark Zuckerberg, will replace its existing fact-checking system with a community notes approach similar to X (formerly Twitter), while simultaneously relaxing rules against hateful content.

According to Banaji, these changes will permit dehumanizing language against women, LGBTQIA+ communities, and immigrants to flourish unchecked. The policy shift comes as X owner Elon Musk reportedly considers purchasing TikTok’s US operations, following the Biden administration’s ultimatum that the platform must be sold to American owners or face a ban.

“A powerful minority are profiting massively from a rise in hate,” Banaji notes, pointing out that many decision-makers have vested interests in multiple companies while holding regulatory power over the information sphere.

The timing of these changes has raised eyebrows among media analysts. Meta’s policy shift was announced shortly after Donald Trump’s election victory, with critics describing it as a “sycophantic show of support” for the incoming administration. Joel Kaplan, Meta’s head of global policy, justified the changes using “free speech” rhetoric that many experts find misleading.

User resistance to these platform changes has manifested in several ways. A significant exodus from X to competitor Bluesky occurred in late November, while millions of American TikTok users have begun migrating to Xiaohongshu (Little Red Book), a Chinese e-commerce platform, in protest of the potential TikTok ban.

Banaji describes this unexpected cross-cultural exchange on Xiaohongshu as “fascinating and humbling,” noting the emergence of genuine connections between American and Chinese users that challenge longstanding stereotypes perpetuated by Western media and government sources.

The history of social media moderation provides important context. Platforms implemented fact-checking and anti-hate measures following public outrage over scandals like Cambridge Analytica’s role in Brexit, the public murder of George Floyd, and the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. These measures were attempts to address genuine harms, not to suppress legitimate expression.

Research indicates that online hate speech has continued to rise globally despite fact-checking efforts, not because of them. Human Rights Watch documented how Meta’s policies have systematically censored pro-Palestinian content since October 2023, demonstrating that platform moderation already disproportionately impacts marginalized voices.

The consequences of reduced moderation extend far beyond the digital realm. In August 2024, far-right disinformation networks contributed to violent racist riots across the UK, demonstrating the real-world impact of online hate.

Banaji calls for decisive action to break up media and tech monopolies, address conflicts of interest when billionaires control both media platforms and political influence, and increase critical media literacy. She emphasizes that the current challenges require both regulatory intervention and grassroots efforts to rebuild public trust and community resilience against racist and misogynistic violence.

“We are in a very grim period when it comes to trust and integrity in the media and social media sphere,” Banaji concludes, highlighting the urgent need for reform in an increasingly polarized information landscape where corporate interests and political agendas frequently override public safety concerns.