Finally action against social media platforms?

6

October

2021

No ratings yet.

Over the last couple of years, scandal after scandal regarding the blatant disregard for mental health issues by social media platforms like Facebook have been brought to the public’s attention. The 2020 Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma, where several industry experts give insights into how social media platforms are exploiting users by manipulating their mental health for their own profits, brought great attention to these issues, but over time these effects subsided. This week, again, Facebook whistleblower Francis Haugen came out and stirred the pot by testifying before Congress the dangers of Facebook for children, and how the company put profits before the safety of users. Finally, it seems that governments are listening to society’s cries for help, but will it be enough to enforce stricter regulations?

It is not “news” that social media heavily manipulates its users to try and keep them on the app as long as possible, improving their own profits. For years it has been publicly known that platforms like Facebook hire people who’s main aim is to make the website as addictive as possible, without regard for the implications these might have on the mental health of users. As a result, increased anxiety, depression, and isolation are associated with excessive social media usage. Multiple employees have gone public to try and gain attention for this issue; some successfully, some to no avail. Recently, it was discovered that Facebook tried to cover up an internal report which researched how their products affects users. The report finds that 32% of young girls who felt bad about their body felt worse when they went to Instagram. Furthermore, the report concludes that Instagram negatively affects mental health in both young boys and young girls. With an app so commonly used among children, and (young) adults it is staggering how legislators are not cracking down on this extremely damaging industry. After all, (mental) health should be a main priority for governments.

This latest scandal has again put the power of social media in the media’s eye. Finally, legislators in the U.S. have put forward new, and expanding regulations that could have a bit of an impact on the negative effects of social media, such an expansion of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act which makes it illegal for platforms to collect data from under 13-year olds without consent of their parents. However, I am not very optimistic as other initiatives have often failed to become accepted into regulation, or fail to really serve the purpose of the legislation. Furthermore, the power of the platforms is enormous, and these are heavily involved in the funding of political parties, which poses another interesting question: should these gigantic (tech) corporations be allowed to be this involved in politics? However, that is a topic for a different blog.

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/e9e25ff3-639a-4cc1-bb81-dedf24d956e3 https://www.ft.com/content/febd8adc-8729-4e50-889d-f22a109fd44e

Please rate this

Bitcoin: killing the planet?

4

October

2021

5/5 (1)

Pretty much everyone between the age 16 and 50 have by now heard of Bitcoin, the so-called replacer of the monetary system as we know it. While it’s proponents such as a limited supply, decentralisation, and transparency are interesting on it’s own, in this blog I will delve into the ecological implications of the Bitcoin network. Many state that the digital currency is a massive polluter, and should be banned because of rising climate concerns, while others do not share this concern. Why is this the case?

Bitcoin, like any other product/service requires energy to function. In this case, a lot of energy. 150 terawatt-hours of electricity per year to be exact. To put things into perspective: the Netherlands uses approximately 120 terawatt-hours per year. The reason why the bitcoin network consumes such large amounts of energy is because of the way the blockchain network works. The network needs miners who use powerful hardware such as computers to verify and validate transactions on the bitcoin network, as it uses a proof-of-work (PoW) concept. Elon Musk, who was once responsible for one of the first major companies (Tesla) to accept Bitcoin as a means of payment. However, supposedly after accepting it, retracted the option as Bitcoin’s electricity consumption concerns grew by the public. Every year, Bitcoin’s electricity consumption has been growing and this is causing large concerns for the public, consumers, regulators, and investors as global warming is a hot topic (pun intended) nowadays. Clearly, there seems to be a valid argument for the concerns of these stakeholders.

While the previous sections does raise some eyebrows with many people, it lacks some nuance as it does not tell the whole story. For example, Nasdaq researched the energy consumption of bitcoin when compared to gold mining (Bitcoin and gold are often compared due to their similar characteristics). The report shows that bitcoin uses less than half of the energy consumption of gold yearly. Next to that, gold is an extremely destructive industry not only in terms of energy expenditure, but also with regards to human rights (slavery, working conditions, etc.). This shows that Bitcoin is much less “bad” than gold, but this is not necessarily a tremendous accomplishment. However, there is also so more “good” news in Bitcoin’s energy expenditure. This year, the Bitcoin Mining Councel – which consists of the largest bitcoin miners – announced that it has plans to further renewable energy usage by its miners. Cambridge currently estimates that 39 percent of global Bitcoin mining is powered by renewables, mainly hydropower. Globally, the average of renewables in electricity generation is only 25 percent, which means that the Bitcoin network is already heavily outperforming the average.

With some more context, concerns about energy consumptions appear much less critical than before. However, while it is a much better alternative to gold, there are still large, valid concerns about its total energy expenditure. Global warming is real, and is a major topic among pretty much all of society. Therefore, while clean energy consumption is outperforming the market and is expected to rise with the aid of the Bitcoin Mining Council, improving this even further is of essence for the concerns to subside completely.

Sources: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/05/14/as-the-price-of-bitcoin-has-climbed-so-has-its-environmental-cost
https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/building-a-stronger-financial-system-opportunities-of-a-central-bank-digital-currency
https://www.earthworks.org/campaigns/no-dirty-gold/impacts/#:~:text=Gold%20mining%20is%20one%20of,health%20of%20people%20and%20ecosystems.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-really-consume-2021-05-13
https://www.earthworks.org/campaigns/no-dirty-gold/impacts/#:~:text=Gold%20mining%20is%20one%20of,health%20of%20people%20and%20ecosystems.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57240090
https://www.smart-energy.com/renewable-energy/cryptocurrency-mining-and-renewable-energy-friend-or-foe/

Please rate this