Break Glass: Structural Safeguards For Social Media

Abstract

As of early 2025, the challenges of social media governance are back in the headlines. Some countries are embracing an ‘anything goes’ approach, emphasizing freedom of speech and the absence of censorship. Other countries are doubling down on protections to minimize online harm and offensive content. While each country sorts out its own path for the near future, the importance of this decision is not in any doubt. Social media channels are a hugely powerful force driving many societal outcomes, which we have witnessed repeatedly over the past decade. Social media has been instrumental in connecting family and friends, sharing art, rescuing lost loved ones, forming new high-growth businesses, informing people, globalizing culture, enabling bullying of children, deepening partisan divides, influencing electoral outcomes, causing riots, toppling governments, enabling criminals and fomenting genocide. It’s a mixed record, to say the least. Social media is now the planet’s most prevalent method for sharing information. As of 2024, more than 5 billion users spend an average of 2 hours and 23 minutes per day on these platforms (more time than with traditional TV or any other form of media). In the next two years, social commerce—the process of selling products directly on social media platforms or within social-first commerce marketplaces—is projected to surge to $1.2 trillion, making it the 17th largest economy in the world. Despite many social benefits, this rapidly expanding ecosystem is fertile ground for misinformation, hate speech, fraud, varied harms to youth and many other issues. The rise of AI generated content, and AI-powered human-like agents are further amplifying these risks. In response, some governments have taken measures to combat online harm, typically by requiring platforms to take protective measures. As an initial 'stop-gap' approach, these requirements have helped reduce harm, but have not been entirely successful. The regulatory approach has several shortcomings such as: Empowering any regulator to (directly or indirectly) dictate acceptable speech raises the specter of government censorship. Platforms use varied thresholds for harm, and define harmful content differently than regulators do, creating legal and operational disputes. Placing the onus on platforms fails to adequately account for the responsibility of the individual - both creators and consumers - in enabling harm. Ensuring online safety imposes significant costs on platforms which inadvertently reinforces platform monopolies as only the largest networks can afford compliance. Can we do better? How can we allow free information while limiting harms? How should we balance conflicting rights such as freedom of speech, privacy and personal safety and security? How should we better protect youth? What expectations can we reasonably put on platforms, regulators, content producers or consumers? How can we decide any of this in a fractured global regulatory environment, where governments take significantly different views on these issues, yet information flows are globalized? In our view, the technological changes coming demand not just incremental changes to oversight, but a bold reimagination of our online safeguards. Instead of tightening the regulatory grip on social media (or taking a hands-off approach!) we need a smarter solution—one that focuses on improving the experiences of users themselves, and lets them ultimately manage the boundaries of their online experience.