Social Media Accountability: Protecting User Rights in the Digital Age
Protecting User Rights: Why Social Media Platforms Must Be Held Accountable
By Marla Fernandez
Introduction
Social media platforms like Facebook have become essential tools for communication, advocacy, and business. However, with their power comes responsibility—and a growing concern about arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of policies. This post explores the contractual and constitutional issues surrounding these platforms and the urgent need for reform.
The Problem with Vague Social Media Policies
Social media platforms operate under Terms of Service (TOS) agreements, which serve as contracts between the platform and its users. However, vague policies and arbitrary enforcement—such as restricting users for “annoying behavior”—create an imbalance of power, leaving users frustrated and vulnerable.
Key Points:
- Platforms often fail to provide clear evidence or explanations for restrictions.
- Vague terms allow for subjective enforcement, violating fairness in contracts.
Material Breach of Contract
When platforms impose account restrictions without providing clear explanations or evidence, they risk violating users’ contractual rights. For paying users—such as those subscribed to Meta Verified or advertising services—failure to deliver promised benefits constitutes a material breach that may entitle users to remedies under contract law.
2. Constitutional Implications: Free Speech and Due Process
Although private entities like Facebook are not directly bound by the U.S. Constitution, their practices may intersect with constitutional principles under specific conditions:
A. First Amendment Concerns
Social media platforms function as modern public squares, facilitating critical public discourse. Courts have acknowledged this in cases like Packingham v. North Carolina (2017). If platforms suppress speech based on government influence, they may be deemed state actors and subject to constitutional restrictions on censorship.
B. Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection
Platforms must ensure that enforcement policies do not disproportionately target or impact specific groups. Disparate treatment of users based on political beliefs, religion, or other protected categories could raise equal protection concerns.
C. Procedural Due Process
Platforms exercise significant control over users’ ability to communicate and do business. Restrictions imposed without clear explanations or a fair appeal process could be seen as a denial of procedural fairness, even if not directly governed by constitutional due process standards.
3. Consumer Protection and Corporate Responsibility
A. Unfair Trade Practices
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), deceptive or unfair business practices—such as restricting access to paid services without valid justification—can lead to legal consequences. State consumer protection laws similarly prohibit such practices.
B. Transparency and Accountability
Users are entitled to clear, transparent policies and consistent enforcement. Vague accusations, such as labeling users “annoying,” create an environment where users cannot effectively contest or address alleged violations.
C. Impact on Public Trust
Inconsistent or unfair enforcement undermines user trust, harming both individual users and the platform’s reputation. For paying users, this raises additional concerns of unjust enrichment if services are paid for but not delivered.
4. Legal Remedies and Recommendations
A. For Affected Users
- File a Complaint with Facebook:
- Request specific evidence supporting any alleged violations.
- Appeal restrictions through Facebook’s internal review process.
- Pursue Legal Action:
- For paying users, file a claim for breach of contract or unjust enrichment.
- Seek Regulatory Intervention:
- File complaints with the FTC or state attorneys general, citing deceptive or unfair practices.
B. For Policymakers
- Strengthen Consumer Protection Laws:
- Ensure platforms are held accountable for clear and fair enforcement.
- Clarify Platform Accountability:
- Explore legislative reforms to address platforms’ role in public discourse and their obligations to users.
5. Conclusion
Social media platforms like Facebook operate in a unique space, balancing private business interests with their role in the digital public square. Their actions must align with contractual obligations, respect constitutional principles, and adhere to consumer protection laws. Users, as individuals endowed with inherent rights, deserve transparency, fairness, and accountability in their interactions with these platforms.
It’s time to advocate for reforms that ensure social media platforms honor their commitments and respect the rights of those they serve.