2024, the so-called electoral super year, confirmed digital platforms’ potential for disruptive and domino effects beyond most expectations. It was not only the widely mentioned impact of social media on the election process and results in many countries, digital platforms are so pervasive that most humans experienced their impacts in ‘real-life’ societies, as well as their influence on the planet itself, through human acts.
For the first time in the US, we saw a singular reversal of dynamics: the owner of the platform X publicly endorsed Donald Trump’s campaign (but X didn’t explicitly do so), while the Washington Post decided not to support candidates for the first time in 9 elections cycles, leading to a loss of 250,000 subscribers. The leading newspaper publishes articles written by journalists, which are balanced or sometimes lean to the left, targeted at more or less the same global audience. This is in sharp contrast with X, an allegedly neutral digital platform, which actively promotes online engagement by amplifying radical content crafted to hook profiled users—radical content which is often contaminated with mis/disinformation.
The US is a country with long-standing, polarized politics and an anti-regulation culture. Such a combination fostered piecemeal privacy and disinformation regulations, adding up to more than 20 state or federal laws as of October 2024. On top of this regulation mismatch, the First Amendment of the US Constitution has been significantly stretched during the course of 2024. Originally, it was designed and established in the Bill of Rights to protect citizens’ free speech against government control. The US’ vivid, living, democracy at work has seen arguments over decades, and interpretations of the First Amendment have changed several times. For at least 5 years, social media platforms have taken center stage in these disputes. However, they are privately owned, hence outside the scope of 1791’s First Amendment. But being the new democratic agora, some voices have emerged questioning the relevance of the First Amendment for online platforms. In June 2024, the US Supreme Court confirmed that courts and state governments could not control free speech on social media platforms. But what about the terms of use of such platforms?
The datafication of the world means that many (distorted) ‘digital twins’ or ‘digital shadows’ are crafted to replicate real humans. The data parameters for such digital shadows are only partly created by users themselves. The remaining data collection comes from behavioral digital traces captured by systems and devices. Most digital tools rely on this data to harvest an ocean of information and turn them into knowledge, for decisions. The rapid shift from information scarcity to information overload has caught the human brain wrong-footed. People expect data-refining tools including social media algorithms to help humans decide what’s relevant to retrieve from the ocean of information they are facing.
The prioritization and amplification by digital platforms are instrumental to this promise, except preferences are no longer chosen by users but by digital platforms themselves, following their own business priorities.
The prioritization and amplification by digital platforms are instrumental to this promise, except preferences are no longer chosen by users but by digital platforms themselves, following their own business priorities. The ‘one man one voice’ rule is long gone. Your share of voice is now attached either to the money you pay or to the advertising money you help the platform collect. Free speech isn’t free anymore.
Coincidentally, digital platforms have now removed academic access to their data, even though this kind of access had been carefully designed through step-by-step debate between 2018 and 2021. X did it in early 2023, Facebook began downsizing Crowntangle in 2022 until its complete shutdown in August 2024. One could argue that both platforms have been removing any risk of litigation at a moment when regulations were coalescing in various countries: what used to be ‘no body, no crime’, now is ‘no user data, no litigation case’.
Within the I4T Knowledge community, we believe that digital platforms need to guarantee ‘information integrity’ by amplifying certified information and guaranteeing free speech against online trolls.
Within the I4T Knowledge community, we believe that digital platforms need to guarantee ‘information integrity’ by amplifying certified information and guaranteeing free speech against online trolls. Several avenues for how platforms can do this, while maintaining engagement and trade secrets, have been described. Until digital platforms offer this quality of service, online civil rights and ’real-life’ democracies are at risk.
This online human rights discussion often remains a typical Global North debate, where net neutrality exists because the web and over-the-top (OTT) services are widely available. Digital access has definitely become mandatory for whoever expects to be part of ‘normal’ society. But in Global South countries, 30% of humanity still doesn’t have digital access. And for those who have digital access, ’the web’ is often limited to WhatsApp. This relates to one of the fastest-growing concerns: social media is blending with messaging platforms.
This relates to one of the fastest-growing concerns: social media is blending with messaging platforms.
You can access WhatsApp on planes and in many Global South countries with no paid data, but you still might not have online content alternatives. Over the years social media platforms and telecom operators have agreed through undisclosed deals to offer so-called ’zero rate’ mobile plans to users in most Latin American countries and parts of South-East Asia. In Africa, only Ghana and South Africa seem to have equivalent zero-rate plans. Many digital platforms have secured such deals. Mainly, we focus on the Meta Group services (Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp) and X-Twitter. Some countries like India banned deals with Facebook only, opening the market to alternatives.
Messaging platforms add a new set of issues to existing ones because amplification mechanisms and echo chambers now gradually build up undercover and out of reach from digital or media regulators. Telecom regulators usually have restricted perimeters leaving messaging platforms with all the time in the world to nurture best-of-impact videos and narratives, under the pretense of allegedly private messaging groups/channels where in reality 50% of users claim that they are exposed to messages from people they don’t know.
Watchdogs only realize the damaging effects when the most efficient viral disinformation formats are propelled up the food chain towards ’public’ social media and then endorsed by public figures, mainstream media, or crowd leaders.
Watchdogs only realize the damaging effects when the most efficient viral disinformation formats are propelled up the food chain towards ’public’ social media and then endorsed by public figures, mainstream media, or crowd leaders. These phenomena have been observed from Turkey to Hungary, and from Mexico to the Philippines. The French Police and forensics had investigated similar processes which led to the French legal case against Telegram in 2024.
The phenomenon is also true for newcomers like TikTok: the platform impacted younger voters in the 2024 elections, with many youngsters feeling more motivated to register and vote after engaging with TikTok content. According to a 1,000 user study by Cint in the UK, 22% of TikTok users reported being inspired to vote, while 21% changed their voting intentions based on what they saw. Social progress issues have been used to increase political influence during elections in 2024. Gender polarization has, for instance, been used to rally Hispanic male voters in the US. Even if the Indian example proves that a massive investment in WhatsApp does not secure election results, considering the impact of these messaging platforms on voting opinions, I4T Knowledge members expect that the subject will be raised during the UN Social Summit 2025 and in the second round 2024-2027 of the International Panel for Social Progress.
Climate change information and disinformation have again been used to skew voters’ perceptions about candidates.
Finally, in these learnings from the 2024 elections, we would like to express our sadness that climate change still is not an issue of trans-partisan agreement. Climate change information and disinformation have again been used to skew voters’ perceptions about candidates. Open-market politicians have downplayed climate issues, focusing instead on economic fears and cultural anxieties. Disinformation campaigns have propagated false narratives about climate policies being too costly or restrictive. As a result, critical climate action discussions are marginalized in most political programs, threatening both electoral integrity and the urgency of addressing climate change. This weaponization of climate information for political purposes was typical of some elections in 2024, like the European elections. I4T Knowledge supports the recent ‘Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change’ officially launched during the G20 Summit in Rio by the Brazilian Government, the UN Secretariat, and UNESCO. Considering what’s at stake, we cannot let partisan interest undermine scientific consensus, obstruct authorities’ handling of the human societies’ crises induced by climate change, and threaten the safety of journalists and environmental defenders.
