Effects on a Commercialized Internet on Society

Over 5.52 billion people use the Internet in some way, shape, or form (Petrosyan). That is about 68 percent of the world’s population. According to Statista, around 5.22 billion people use social media. Of those users, 89 percent believe social media damages their mental health to some degree (MacRae). That means that around 4.6 billion people feel that social media is detrimental to their health—but they still use it. But why do people use it if it is so thoroughly connected to higher rates of depression and anxiety? People have a need to connect with others and form communities, and social media is one of the most readily available methods of doing so. Often, the Internet is the only method of doing so for some. The issue is not the use of the Internet itself. The issue is how today’s Internet is exclusively run by money-hungry corporations making platforms as profitable as possible to the detriment of their users. Ten years ago, people were not forced to navigate seas of advertising and promotions just to use a website, and people were not forced to give up their personal information against their will for companies to sell to advertisers. Social media companies program malicious algorithms to push harmful content to users, keeping them online for longer at the cost of their mental health, just so that advertisements get more engagement (Ahmed). It is clear that the commercialization and privatization of the Internet is directly harmful to users because it promotes harmful content and a toxic Internet culture, prioritizes profit over people, and prevents users from existing online without their personal data being collected and sold behind their backs. Some possible solutions would be to find or create more personal places on the Internet, form communities with other users, and advocate for stricter regulations on the business models of social media and Internet companies.

Billy Perrigo writes in the article Building a Better Internet that “Social media has connected families across oceans, allowed political movements to blossom and reduced friction in many parts of our lives. It has also led to the rise of industrial-scale misinformation and hate speech, left many of us depressed or addicted, and thrust several corporations into unprecedented roles as the arbiters of our new online public square” (Perrigo 80). It is well known that overuse of social media can lead to anxiety and depression, and everyone has seen anger or fear-inducing content pushed onto their feeds, and everyone has skipped through terms of service agreements and accepted them without knowing the ramifications (Bashir and Bhat; Ahmed). However, it is not as well known that these are meant to keep people online for as long as possible to maximize their engagement and ad revenue (Ahmed). According to Billy Perrigo in the article Building a Better Internet, “[...] the core problem with the social platforms lies in their algorithms that choose to amplify content according to the amount of ‘engagement’ it provokes. [...] Posts that are hateful or controversial or play into preconceived biases tend to gain more likes, comments and shares than those that are thoughtful, lengthy or nuanced.” Algorithms do not discern between positive and negative forms of engagement. It only sees the number of likes and comments on a post and decides that it is the kind of post people want to see. As written in Building a Better Internet, “‘It’s not that these platforms love hate speech. It’s that their algorithms were designed to make sure people were seeing the kinds of things that were going to keep them on the site’” (Perrigo 82). Although this usually works fine, it also is predisposed to spreading harmful content more than other kinds. This can lead to depression and anxiety in users, especially younger users and members of certain minorities, as well as directly harming people with conditions like anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorder who are already vulnerable to harmful content like hate speech or chainmail. It is unfair to expect these people to just “get off the Internet” just because they have a condition. Not to mention the fact that the reason Internet platforms need to keep users online is to track their data and sell it to advertisers (EPIC). It does not matter to these people whether or not users like the content they see, even if they might not agree ideologically. All that matters is that it keeps users on their platform. Data collection is not usually directly harmful to users, but it does pose a danger, especially in modern times where surveillance is at an all-time high and the political climate is beginning to worsen. Plus, the majority of people would much rather keep their personal information to themselves, thus why these are problems that must be addressed.

To begin, it is important to remember that previous attempts at addressing these issues have been made. For example, some people have elected to migrate to smaller, more tightly-knit regions of the Internet, and create their own websites for personal use. They might use hosts like Neocities, a replacement for the now-defunct site Geocities, or host their websites privately. Neocities especially has become a hub for individuals and groups like HTML Energy who believe that the current state of the Internet is unacceptable and needs to be revised (Ng 79). It might prove itself a decent alternative to social media for those who have a penchant for blogging or customizing their profiles. As Tiffany Ng writes in the article Recapturing the Whimsy of the Early Internet, “In an internet that is increasingly consumerist, HTML Energy sites offer a gentle reminder that websites can be meditative experiences.” However, some people may not want to give up social media altogether. Internet users who feel this way often will opt out of as many tracking and data collection services as they can, use ad blockers, and avoid any sites or services known for their egregious levels of data collection. Regardless of whichever path Internet users may choose, there is one method of protecting oneself that people often forget: logging off of the Internet once in a while. It sounds unhelpful, but really one of the best ways to improve your mental health is to go out and do things in real life (“3 ways getting outside into nature helps improve your health;” Heid). Ultimately, while these solutions have not completely solved the Internet’s problems, they still function well as harm reduction and should be employed wherever possible.

Meanwhile, on a less personal level, legislation may be the only way to truly make any change to the Internet itself. No matter how many ad blockers are used, no matter how careful any one person is, the Internet will remain geared towards the profit of a few large corporations, and never for the people that use it. Thus, the best solution is to advocate for legislation that will make a real change in the way the Internet is designed. As written in EPIC’s article on social media privacy, “Congress must enact comprehensive data protection legislation to place strict limits on the collection, processing, use, and retention of personal data by social networks and other entities. The Federal Trade Commission should also make use of its existing authority to rein in abusive data practices by social media companies, and both the FTC and Congress must take swift action to prevent monopolistic behavior and promote competition in the social media market” (EPIC).

Although the Internet can be a wonderful place of connection and community for people of all walks of life, it is still far from perfect in many ways. Algorithms promote harmful content to keep people online just so that social media companies may collect their data to sell. People give up on the Internet altogether and lose hundreds of connections every day because of the harm it causes to their health. People try all the time to pass legislation protecting users, but it is futile without more publicity. Ultimately, it is clear that the current state of the Internet is more than unsuitable for the wellbeing of its users, but by being diligent and advocating for better regulations on the online world as well as being cautious on one’s own, much of its problems can be solved with enough patience and effort.