Social media is only part of the problem
Facebook has hit the headlines again for the wrong reasons. Whistle Blowers are suggesting that it has made decisions that put profit before the safety and wellbeing of its users.

Facebook has hit the headlines again for the wrong reasons. Whistle Blowers are suggesting that it has made decisions that put profit before the safety and wellbeing of its users. The Whistle Blowers suggest that changing the way in which the platform promotes content could be easily implemented, but that there is internal resistance to this as it will result in less controversy, therefore less use and ultimately less profits.
It is difficult to evaluate the merits of these claims because (and the Whistle Blowers make this point) we don’t have access to all the information. Certainly this is something that the governments of the world could assist with. The US congress and the British government inquiries will help but it appears that a more concerted effort to get the information will be required. It is unlikely that all of the information will be offered up voluntarily – which one of us would willingly share information that doesn’t paint us in the best of lights. Particularly in a country such as the US where the population is so divided at the moment.
It seems that social media is capable of delivering so much good and doing so much harm in the same way. Many of us will remember the heady days of the Arab spring where the platform was used to co-ordinate and organise protest. Unfortunately that same platform was able to be used by those in power in Myanmar to incite the genocide of the Rohingya.
Social media allows people to stay in touch and find like-minded people for support. Unfortunately it also allows those that want to spread misinformation to find a home for it and to mislead and deceive those that may not be able to sort the truth from the lies and are too quick to trust.
But all of this is just part of the problem. The debate that I watched over the weekend highlighted an issue for me that has its heart in social media but is also very much a symptom of the age we find ourselves in. Social media has allowed us to express our outrage without needing to necessarily stop and think of the consequences for others. People consider that social media is the modern town square. But unfortunately it doesn’t operate quite like the town square – the people in it are often nameless and faceless. And as a result they feel that they are able to act in a way that they might not choose to if they were likely to be held to account.
This weekend what initially started as a comment from Dave Dobbyn - that negative comments about the non-vaccinated were not helpful - resulted in a bit of a pile on to somebody that is seen by most as a great kiwi. The pile on ceased to be about the issue but more an attack on the person. Since when is this healthy debate?
In fact debate of this nature is only going to make things worse. If we cannot provide a supportive environment in which the issues are discussed then for those that are nervous about issues, such as vaccination, we are only going to drive them to a place where they can feel safe. A place where people show that they are listening to their concerns. Unfortunately it appears that this is a place where people will feed them the misinformation that will only harden their resolve.
Now is the time to build a place where accurate information can be shared and debate can be had.
I’m not sure what the Whistle Blowers have seen as possible, but is now the time to try to link people more closely to their identity so that they are less likely to behave in a manner they would not otherwise behave in public? Is now the time to implement a rating system like you find on say trademe or the ride share apps. Is now the time to implement roles that rate trust – like trip advisor?
If we implemented one of these, will it result in one of the great strengths of the social media being lost? The fact that discussion can be had anonymously, can in some circumstances allow for people to be braver about their misgivings, their fears and their circumstances.
I am not sure what the answer is but we should be considering more closely how we can have a better debate on things without fear of someone attacking us personally. Now is a time to support each other, not tear people down. A time to unite not to divide. We are all feeling a little more remote and disconnected than normal right now thanks to COVID so now is a time to look to change things.
While governments will continue to look to ensure that these platforms are doing the right thing, we should look to do the same. The platforms are only a reflection of what we are asking for and responding to. We should look to set an example, whether it is where we invest, where we spend our time, who we share our information with. And this will hopefully assist in the change I think we are all looking for.
Oh and for what it is worth, I am also double vaccinated and have done so for my own protection, the protection of the ones that I love and for the good of the community.
Social media image credit: Giles Lambert
Services in this insight
From Hertzian waves to hyperlinks – What the BSA’s online decision means for your business
Space Law in New Zealand — Signals from the ground
Cyber security changes flagged for New Zealand
The four Cs of successful fintech partnerships
New rule 3A introduced to the Biometric Processing Privacy Code
IPP3A is nearly in force – What agencies need to know
OPC shifts public enquiries online – What agencies should do now
AI as a confidante? Legal privilege and the ever-increasing use of AI
New Therapeutic and Health Advertising Code – What you need to know
Building blocks of trade mark law: New Zealand approach to "use as a trade mark" now compatible with Australia
Consumer law update 2025
Open banking launches in New Zealand
Is fair something to fear? The Government announces beefed-up Fair Trading Act
Is it fair? Lessons from Bartz v Anthropic and Kadrey v Meta
Open banking almost live
Why New Zealand businesses should care about the EU Data Act
Product labelling changes flagged for New Zealand
Biometric Processing Privacy Code 2025 introduced to New Zealand
Open banking regulations released for consultation
Ten tips for buy-side M&A success
A recipe for disaster – Is caramel a copyright work?
Becoming a Globally Renowned Fintech Nation (and how regulation can light the path)
Important changes made to the Privacy Act
New Zealand may ban social media for young users
Customer and Product Data Act update – Open banking officially on the way
Tips from the trenches – Your AI policy cheat sheet
Significant regulatory reform proposed for New Zealand media
Security guidance released for emerging tech companies
Customer and Product Data Bill – Select Committee reports back
Consumer law update 2024
New Zealand’s Artist Resale Royalty is ready to go
The shape of coffee – “Moccona” vs “Vittoria”
New Zealand’s Copyright Act gets a sense of humour
WIPO’s traditional knowledge treaty is adopted
Doing business in the Middle East
AI and advertising – What producers need to know
Seven contract clauses every freelancer needs
Baby Reindeer – When truth is stranger than fiction?
Our comments on the Biometric Processing Privacy Code
Therapeutic Products Act to be repealed this year
Is End-to-End to end?
Geographical indications – Changes uncorked by the EU-NZ Fair Trade Agreement
Lawyers and Generative AI – New NZ Law Society guidance released
Facing the future – A biometrics code of practice for New Zealand?
Deepfakes and style mimicking – Should New Zealand adopt a right of publicity?
Five Eyes release the Five Principles to Secure Innovation
The copyright conundrum with generative AI
Innovate at the speed of trust – Privacy Commissioner releases new guidance on artificial intelligence tools
Political advertising on social media: sludge or copyright quagmire?
Privacy Amendment Bill introduced to Parliament
New Data Privacy Framework: Meta gets a lifeline
The long and winding road to royalties
Implications of the Supreme Court’s “new debt” approach in Mainzeal
EU gets closer to AI laws
UK Supreme Court puts Quincecare ‘duty’ back in its box
A Deep Dive into The Customer and Product Data Bill
Searching for a shield: Meta’s €1.2 billion fine and international transfers in the age of Big Data
New NZ-UK Free Trade Agreement signals tech, media and IP law changes
Ditch the fax! Tips for building a tech-savvy law firm
The Incorporated Societies Act 2022 – what you need to know for your society
Common myths about copyright online
Artificial artist, or artificial plagiarist?
Big boost to gaming
Is your product “AI powered”?
The latest on New Zealand’s Consumer Data Right
Space Law in New Zealand
You Cannot Defame the Dead or Can You? Tikanga Māori and NZ Defamation Law
Open Banking is coming – through the Consumer Data Right
Massive SEC Fines for Companies Using Text and Instant Messaging
One Act to Rule Them All
A Legal Guide to Kicking SaaS
Potential changes to the Privacy Act 2020
NZ's Social Media "Code of Practice" Launched
Are you being unfair?
Are you legal?
Power Up 2022
A new Companies Office levy is one step closer
Has Paramount Pictures gone maverick?
From Russia with love: The ‘other’ Russian conflict targeting intellectual property owners
I'm back, baby
Retail Payment System Act 2022 now in force
Paying the price for getting privacy wrong
Can AI be an inventor?
Finfluencer Crackdown
TIN Fintech Insights Report Launch
Britain seeks to regulate 'Big Tech'
Disclosure of personal information - how to, not don't do
The Spice May Flow, But The Copyright Doesn’t
Sound Recording Ownership (Taylor's Version)
The Lowdown (and Lockdown) on Summer Clerkships
Building Blocks of Trust
Firm News | Legal Rankings
Buy Now, Regulate Soon
Ten simple things
Funding the Future
Cyber Security for Start-ups
Fit for purchase
The Screen Industry Workers Bill
UK/New Zealand Trade Deal Takes Flight
Palmer v Alalääkkölä
Other articles you
might like
The Broadcasting Standards Authority has concluded it has jurisdiction over an online media outlet that livestreams to New Zealand audiences.
The new Therapeutic and Health Advertising Code tightens expectations on health and therapeutic claims, especially in digital advertising.
A new Members' bill would ban some social media for users under 16 years old.







.jpg)



.jpg)

.jpg)
