Barcelona Metropolis

Patrícia Ventura
Doctor of Media, Communication and Culture

The redefinition of social media is primarily driven by two factors. Firstly, tech companies’ relentless pursuit of higher profits, regardless of the cost. This involves finding new ways to capture people’s attention, which translates into algorithm changes and a focus on prioritising audiovisual and entertainment content. In short, adopting the TikTok model.

The second factor is cultural. These platforms have been part of our reality for two decades. Initially, we were fascinated by their role in mobilising social movements, but we have since realised that they also lead to information overload, filter bubbles, misinformation, data extraction and other harmful effects on the democratic system.

We’ve learned all of this through a series of scandals, and we’ve passed it on to new generations, who, it seems, are beginning to act accordingly, as indicated by some signs. This suggests that they are becoming more sceptical of the information they receive, while also exposing themselves less and being more aware of their data and their own confirmation biases.

Just as the regulation of platforms is necessary, so too is digital sovereignty. This means the creation of independent, non-profit infrastructures that are governed democratically. This is essential because communication between people is a fundamental need, and, therefore, the channels that enable it should be considered common goods.

Karma Peiró
Journalist Specialised in Information Technology

Humans have a fundamental need to communicate and tend to form communities, and social media has made this significantly easier for us. Thanks to these platforms, particularly Facebook and Twitter (now X), social movements such as the Arab Spring, 15-M and Occupy Wall Street have gained momentum, along with large-scale mobilisations advocating for human rights and opposing the persecution of minorities.

Also worth noting, though less widely reported, are the thousands of cases of families who, with the selfless help of anonymous individuals, have gathered signatures to change laws, secured funding for medical treatments, or located missing persons.

Given all these experiences and social realities, I doubt we are witnessing the end of social media. That said, it will be essential to find ways to control the spread of messages that promote hate, violence and misinformation, particularly when they pose a threat to democracy.

This will not be achieved through bans or blanket laws, as past experience has shown that finding the right balance between regulation and safeguarding the fundamental right to freedom of expression is highly complex. It also seems that tech company owners are not interested in eliminating such hate and misinformation, as it brings them profit. Therefore, I believe we will become increasingly critical of the content we consume in these digital spaces.

Miquel Pellicer
Director of Digital Strategy at the UOC

Social media, once regarded as spaces for freedom and exchange, are now in crisis, with some even claiming they are dead. Nonetheless, given the vast number of people who still use them, this is hard to believe. What has happened is a transformation. Their role in democratic development – as seen in the case of the Arab Spring – has shifted towards political manipulation, misinformation and hate speech.

What’s more, the attention economy, driven by algorithmic manipulation, alerts us to the harmful effects social media can have on mental health. We need to establish new rules for these platforms. It’s a major challenge, one that requires balancing freedom of expression with safety and credibility. At the same time, moderation policies must be brought back into focus, especially now that Elon Musk’s influence is pushing X in the opposite direction.

We need to alert users by strengthening public policies to counter the harmful effects. Why haven’t institutions developed a Digital Development Index (DDI) to assess the ethical and democratic impact of social platforms? In this context, the role of young people is crucial; not as mere consumers of social media, but as active contributors to critical thinking about the messages. Yet, this will not be easy unless we create the right environment to encourage that critical thinking in less hostile digital spaces. It is essential to tackle the emotional dependencies that social media creates in users, as these hinder their ability to discern and question the content they are exposed to.

Ferran Lalueza
Professor of Communication and Social Media at the UOC

Rather than dying, social media has killed – killed, above all, the optimistic expectations that arose from its emergence and rapid popularisation. In doing so, it has shattered the promise of creating a more open and dialogue-driven society. The bridges it was meant to build have been replaced by trenches, where we entrench ourselves in our convictions, rejecting anyone who dares to challenge them. It has also destroyed its potential as information highways and generators of knowledge. Its boundless ability to spread falsehoods has transformed it into a fearsome weapon of mass misinformation with clear manipulative intent.

Besides that, social media has undermined its original democratising ideal of giving every user an equal voice. Algorithms, whether whimsically or driven by questionable interests, have elevated a select few voices while muting all the others.

To make matters worse, social media steals our time and hijacks our attention with addictive tactics, offering no real value in return. And, even worse still, it is taking a serious toll on the mental health of young people, particularly girls and teenagers. That said, I still believe in the potential of social media to make positive contributions to society. However, for that miracle to happen, there is only one path forward: a combination of awareness, education and strict regulation.

Janira Planes Frías
Specialist in Internet Culture at Hamlet Strategic Makers

Social media platforms are still spaces for exchange, experiences and recommendations. Nevertheless, they are no longer public spaces, as it is now clearer than ever who controls these “squares”: profit-driven tech companies. Many of these companies, at least initially, have no intention of manipulating the masses; instead, they hide behind the supposed neutrality of an algorithm that, they argue, simply reflects people’s preferences.

But this algorithm is essentially just a mathematical formula that assumes the more we engage with a certain type of content, the more interested we are in it. This is why hate and misinformation seem to spread faster than ever. In reality, these kinds of posts have more impact on us; we pay more attention to them, and as a result, the big tech companies interpret this as us “liking” them.

Some suggest that users should have the option to choose between different types of algorithms, while others, including Mark Zuckerberg himself, advocate for government intervention to set clear boundaries. Bots should be banned, as they only contribute to the degradation (or “enshittification”) of the online experience, and user identification, though complex and problematic, is an option that should be explored.

When it comes to young people, they are increasingly aware of misinformation and the importance of privacy. This is evident in their declining use of static photos and a clear preference for more ephemeral forms of communication.

Simona Levi
Theatre Director, Playwright, Activist and Educator

It’s crucial not to confuse social media with the internet. All too often, we blame the internet for issues that are actually specific to the digital products of large multinational corporations that own these platforms. The internet itself is a neutral, distributed network, whereas social media platforms are centralised spaces controlled by white, heterosexual billionaires who profit from algorithms that manipulate access to information and sequester our attention.

These platforms were never designed as spaces for the free exchange of ideas, nor as public forums. Still, on many occasions, citizens have managed to turn them to their advantage for actions such as the uprisings between 2010 and 2013. The same thing occurred with the invention of the printing press, which was originally created to spread the Bible but later used to disseminate new ideas, labelled as “heresy”.

When it comes to information, tech companies should be regulated to prevent the creation of addictive algorithms and to stop them from prioritising certain types of content simply to boost their own profits.

In legislating in this area, it is crucial to distinguish between those who profit from (mis)information and polarisation, and those who are simply exercising their freedom of expression. Only by making this distinction can we ensure that fundamental rights are not harmed. For example, the hate speech law is flawed because it targets not “hate”, but “speech”. This is an important nuance, and its harmful consequences have been evident for some time. In democratic societies, regulating power imbalances is essential. If someone can push their message above others simply because they have money and influence, this must be addressed through legislation, including a requirement for content verification.

María Victoria-Mas
Director of Journalism Studies at the Universitat Abat Oliba CEU

Fake news, hate speech… Social media amplifies these issues, but the true causes lie within the shortcomings of the democratic system. Take, for example, political disinformation created by far-right groups.

Social media is a platform for spreading false content more widely. That said, the impact of this content largely depends on whether people believe it. Those who place more trust in such disinformation don’t do so merely because they are exposed to it, but because they are predisposed to believe it. These are individuals who distrust institutions and the media, and as a result, they turn to alternative sources. When citizens lose faith in democratic structures, they become more vulnerable to manipulation.

To tackle issues like distrust, we need measures that involve all the players in the public sphere: a political commitment to truthful communication, free from polarising messages, concrete measures to protect and promote the independence and quality of the media, and a much wider push for media literacy among citizens… Ultimately, focusing the debate on regulating social media is simply seeking a scapegoat to avoid the responsibility we all have in building a stronger democratic system. Technology is what we make of it.

Lorenzo Marini
Co-founder and Strategy Director of Verificat and Ashoka Fellow

We’ve gone from just a few million users in the 1990s to a globally connected majority, transferring much of our collective consciousness to the digital space. Institutions, the media and educators were unprepared for this technological revolution.

Behind the technology are people: some are fighting to make the internet a space of respect and quality, while others exploit it to manipulate, sell or scam. These actors include individuals, companies, states using misinformation as a geopolitical weapon, and political parties. What’s more, misinformation spreads because we haven’t been taught how to critically verify information in a system that values quantity over quality.

The solutions are not simple, but regulation and education are crucial. Regulation is key, but it carries risks: if it is not participatory and consensual, it can become a political tool and have the opposite effect. Users need to be protected, but so too do freedom of expression and pluralism in information. The EU is leading efforts to regulate social media, but there is still much to be done, especially in countries without democracy.

In the field of education, the task is even more complex, but it is indispensable. We must raise collective awareness about the impact of misinformation, which can lead to democratic crises, extreme polarisation, and even death and poverty.

Sergi Santiago
Journalist Specialised in Social Media and Institutional Communication

Historical progressivism is the idea that history inevitably moves towards more prosperous and democratic societies. Similarly, one might have hoped that, over time, we would find ourselves on social media platforms that are kinder and more advanced. The list of immoral actions by tech companies is, however, endless.

The Facebook scandal involving Cambridge Analytica, which harvested users’ data without their consent to influence Donald Trump’s election, led Mark Zuckerberg to testify before the US Congress. Two elections later, Elon Musk, owner of X, has used his position to help Trump return to the political scene and spread misinformation about Kamala Harris.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, promised to invest millions in content moderation, yet it has failed to protect either the rights of its workers or the integrity of the information circulating on its platforms. Up to 20% of the company’s moderators have had to take leave after being exposed to live-streamed content depicting violations, murders or suicides, all without adequate support. Meanwhile, X has drastically cut back its moderation team. And the situation on TikTok is horrifying: they are aware that underage users are undressing in live broadcasts in exchange for virtual currency, yet they have done nothing to stop it.

The pursuit of profit and the lack of scruples among social media companies never ceases to amaze us. The only way forward is a collective awakening that leads to tougher, more ambitious regulations. We deserve social media spaces that are worthy of the countless hours we devote to them.