Profit, Not Free Speech, Governs Media Companies Decisions

Profit, Not Free Speech, Governs Media Companies Decisions

For several decades, U.S. media companies have slowed down the amount of content. They’ve provided in line with what’s best for business. The choices made by Apple, Spotify, Facebook and YouTube to cut content off. The commentator Alex Jones and his Info Wars platform are a continuation of this pattern.

My study of the media industry shows that the government’s rules and regulations are not enough to restrict. What TV shows movies, music albums videos, games, and other media content is accessible to the general public. Concerns about the profitability of business are more stringent limitations. Films evaluate in accordance with their content but not by government officials.

But through the Motion Picture Association of America which is an industry association. Television companies, on the other hand usually have departments that handle. What’s known as standards and practices looking over content and making suggestions. Or requesting changes in order to ensure that they do not offend viewers or advertisers.

The self-policing practice of film television networks and studios is like Facebook’s and YouTube’s actions. Distributing highly controversial content can be detrimental to the business. Viewers who are offend will stay away from the channel and might. Decide to leave the service or network thereby decreasing the number of viewers that are offer to advertisers. A few viewers who are frighten may call for boycotts of advertisers whose advertisements appear on controversial programs.

Through the years, TV networks have absorbed feedback from. Advertisers as well as unintentional disputes to try and avoid negative criticism. The companies that operate social media platforms are only getting to know. How the forces that are working within their own industry too.

Self-Regulation In Order To Avoid Intrusion By The Government

The practice of the media industry to enforce their own rules arose over many years as companies attempted to ease public concerns without having to be subject to formal government oversight. This was a win-win for all parties as elected and appoint officials did not have to deal with things that could interpreted as blocking free speech. Businesses abstained from formal regulations that could be extremely harsh, and concerned citizens could have their concerns considered and taken care of.

Concerns about the level of violence and sex on broadcast television grew throughout the late 1970s broadcasters accept with support of the federal government to introduce an Family Hour during the prime-time hour which was monitor by the National Association of Broadcasters.

Labels agreed to put Parental Advisory labels on albums that contain explicit lyrics. Influenced by filmmakers Video game developers also have adopted ratings based on the evaluations made by an industry association called which is known as Entertainment Software Ratings Board.

There is one major difference between these industries as well as the situations in the case of YouTube or Facebook. Record labels, movie studios as well as TV firms are accountable for creating their content and disseminating it, and are legally accountable for any issues that occur.

Companies that run online media, although generally don’t make the majority of the content that is posted on their platforms and are exempt from any legal liability for the content posted by posts that others make. However, hosting content that is widely viewed as threatening can harm the business even if it’s not against the rules of government.

The Challenges Of Social Media Content Regulation

The social networks have mastered their widespread popularity and huge profit because they do not need to make a charge for the creation of content that draws people’s attention to their services. They profit financially of technological advantages where billions of users can share, create and view various types of content and messages every single day.

They’re just beginning to realize the drawbacks of this technological benefit as the general public. Even though is not a law, considers them to be at least partially accountable. For the content posted on their websites. It’s a challenge to sort, categorize and control the millions of posts. Much more difficult to figure out the best way to automate certain of these tasks.

In the past social media websites have not imposed limits on content, other than in extreme circumstances. Since it’s hard to establish acceptable boundaries which don’t create an increase in controversy. The decision was likely based on weighing the consequences of any objections that would arise in the event. They banned Jones against the potential damage to their brand’s reputation should they decide not to.

Enabled Media Companies

Self-regulation in the past has often enabled media companies to avoid government actions. It’s not clear if the recent actions by social media firms represent. The beginning of a long-lasting self-regulation or just a temporary effort to ward off current concerns. In any case, their choices focus on what’s beneficial for businesses.

Their response to criticism could be one of lust however it could also mean. They are acknowledging the power of culture in their products. In the end, social media companies just like other media firms are demonstrating. They can react to pressure from their customers and the market. Without any regulation, the public will pressure companies to alter. Their policies and opt out of platforms which allow for the cessation of hatred and trolling.

People who wish to see changes should be aware of how the public has pushed. Other media companies to change their practices over the years. People who are seeking more privacy control, an environment without hateful speech and various types of algorithms. May make them a requirement by abandoning unsatisfactory services or avoiding companies that promote these services. As the need for alternatives grows clearer the services will be altered. Or the possibility of a competitor is likely to arise.