AP Prewriting #1: Initial Advocacy Research & Argument: Contextualizing the Advocacy Debate

For our first AP prewriting, we had to analyze 2-3 news sources then deliberate on 2 different advocacy positions based on our findings. I was unsurprised to find that there were little to no real solutions to my issue, however, I did find many different propositions and ideas from different sources. It was fascinating to me getting to read these different stances, and it helped me begin to choose a side on where I wanted my AP to go.

Part 1: Get to Know the Advocacy Debate

Oremus, Will. "Lawmakers’ latest idea to fix Facebook: Regulate the algorithm." The Washington Post, 12 October 2021, www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/12/congress-regulate-facebook-algorithm. Accessed 8 November 2021.

This news article takes a deeper look into the social media algorithms, particularly that of Facebook. Politicians such as Senator Edward Markey and Congresswoman Doris Matsui have proposed legislation that would regulate what we see on social media. These propositions are a result of a correlation between declining mental health and social media usage, especially in that of teenage girls. A few suggestions have been actions such as altering Section 230, “which shields websites and apps from being sued for hosting or moderating content posted by users,” bills such as the Filter Bubble Transparency Act (requiring big tech to elaborate more thoroughly on their algorithm usage) and Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act (prevents discrimination “on the basis of race, age, gender and other protected classes, not just on social media but in arenas such as housing and job ads”), and just throwing away the algorithm altogether. While no law regarding social media regulation has been successfully passed, it is a particularly relevant and contested idea among U.S. politicians. Interestingly enough, these bills seem to be predominantly raised and supported by democrats, but there has yet to be a unanimous agreement among democratic politicians as to which approach they should take for this type of legislation. For example, while the idea of changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has gained some popularity, democrats are unable to agree on the extent to which the section should be altered (e.g. Roddy Lindsay and Nick Clegg). At the end of the day, there is also the looming question of whether or not these laws will violate the First Amendment, which is where these bills can get tricky. Democrats and progressives are working to find a viable solution to this growing social media problem. This is a debate we should definitely be paying closer attention to, as such legislation could affect our social media experience sometime in the near future.

Conger, Kate, et al. "Eating Disorders and Social Media Prove Difficult to Untangle." The New York Times, 22 October 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/technology/social-media-eating-disorders.html. Accessed 8 November 2021.

Conger and fellow authors investigated how social media plays a role in promoting eating disorders. They mention two Senate hearings at the beginning of their New York Times article, both regarding the toxicity of social media and how it actively harms its consumers. Conger and others focus on how social media influences those struggling with eating disorders. Regulating the promotion of eating disorders proves to be nearly impossible as tech companies are limited to only banning specific words and content that explicitly promotes these disorders; they fail to also take action on more implicit content that normalizes and glamorizes eating disorders, such as a TikTok influencer named Mishel Levina. Levina’s content shows off her body at an abnormally thin weight, occasionally posting videos that idealize weight loss and the hopes of achieving an image that’s only “skin and bones.” Content like this cannot necessarily be regulated; if Levina is simply posting about her daily life and showing off her thin figure, TikTok can’t do anything when followers comment remarks such as “body goals” or “I wish I looked like that.” In short, they point out that any implicit portrayal of eating disorders slips under the radar of censorship and advocates for unhealthy eating. 

Part 2: Explore Advocacy Positions

About Us. The Clay Center for Young Healthy Minds at Massachusetts General Hospital. https://www.mghclaycenter.org/about-us/center-goals/. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021.

In my article regarding eating disorders, Dr. Khadijah Booth Watkins from this hospital is cited as one of their sources. Upon reading through this organization’s about page, it’s evident that Watkins and her peers are supportive of whatever action prioritizes mental health. They are also affiliated with Harvard, which contributes to their credibility as professionals. Looking into Watkins’ social media, it becomes apparent that she is all for social media regulation. Her advocacy has a trustworthy foundation considering the center that she works at. Watkins aside, the Clay Center itself is a credible source as its staff consist of many people who specialize in psychology and neurology, all with the shared goal of improving mental health in today’s youth.

About Us. National Eating Disorders Association (NEDA). https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/about-us. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021.

The NEDA “is the largest nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting individuals and families affected by eating disorders,” showing that they are no stranger when it comes to dealing with topics such as those discussed in my chosen articles. They have various programs, helplines, events, and they advocate on legislation regarding eating disorders. Their about page itself under a tab called “our work” is somewhat vague which I found somewhat off putting, but when you click “get involved,” you can see more of the actions that they take to contribute to preventing eating disorders. In general, their aim is to eliminate eating disorders by providing as much support and as many resources as possible for those in need.

The Program on Platform Regulation. Stanford Cyber Policy Center. https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/content/program-platform-regulation. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021.

This program at Stanford states that they “[focus] on current or emerging law governing Internet platforms, with an emphasis on laws’ consequences for the rights and interests of Internet users and the public.” Their displayed articles discuss the nuances of social media regulation, explaining what works and what doesn’t, but ultimately working towards the goal of regulating harmful content on social media. The program is led by Daphne Keller and Joan Barata, who both focus on regulating online platforms and maintaining the rights and self-expression of social media users. They also display an active project named WILMap, which “offers an overview of legislation, decisions or legislative proposals around the globe.” Similar to the Clay Center source, it seems that this program takes a more logic-based approach towards social media regulation.

About. Fight for the Future. https://www.fightforthefuture.org/about. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021.

Fight for the Future is an organization that focuses on tech policy issues, fighting for online justice and defending marginalized groups affected by corruption on the Internet. While self-proclaimed to be “nonpartisan,” I feel that they have a left political leaning because of their verbiage in defending those disproportionately affected by online corruption. Regardless, their aim is to secure basic rights for those on the Internet, defending individuals’ self expression and empowerment on social media and other platforms. We can also infer their political leaning by noticing that a handful of people on their team have a left-leaning bias, as well as a few of their listed supporters who have donated to their cause. Their projects include actions such as cancelling Amazon, banning facial recognition, eliminating spyware on mobile phones, and ending creative monopolies.

About Us. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/about-us. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021.

Out of all of my sources, I feel that this think tank source had the most thorough about page. Their political leaning is ambiguous to me. Based off of their about page and advocacy for human rights and basic freedoms on the Internet, I thought that they leaned left. They also have policy suggestions that would “[combat] corruption,” actively working against authoritarianism in order to uphold democracy. Freedom House focuses on 13 central issues, the most relevant to my topic being Technology & Democracy, Media Freedom, and Freedom of Expression. Upon looking into their Media Freedom section, however, it becomes unclear to me that they lean left because of criticisms on actions like “government-backed ownership changes, regulatory and financial pressure, and public denunciations of honest journalists,” the key idea being the second point in the list. Their platform therefore does not seem to advocate for social media regulation and may actually be nonpartisan or right-leaning.

Part 3: Preliminary Weighing

Upon looking into these new sources, my position has leaned towards regulating social media, I’m just extremely unsure how. The articles I’ve read have given me very thorough information, weighing the pros and cons regarding what is best for a consumer’s individual rights and freedoms, but I still have concerns about how we could pass a bill or legislation to fix the algorithmic issues on platforms. I want to continue looking into propositions such as changing Section 230 because I feel like solutions such as removing algorithms altogether are not viable considering how deeply embedded they are into today’s social media. All things considered, I am advocating for some form of social media regulation to protect the mental health of its users and to end the algorithms’ perpetuation of harmful stereotypes, specifically those regarding gender and sexuality.