• MIKAMI Koji
  Researcher, Graduate School of Letters,Kyoto University

While conspiracy theories as a phenomenon are not uncommon in history, the outbreak of the pandemic has brought a great deal of attention to the conspiracy theories surrounding COVID-19. Many of these theories associate the existence of the virus and vaccinations to the intentions of some powerful individuals working behind the scenes, warning that people are being monitored. Typical examples include theories such as “the COVID-19 virus is a hoax fabricated by powerful individuals for their own agenda” or “vaccines contain embedded microchips.” In some cases, these narratives develop into larger conspiracy theories, such as accusations that the American political and business elite and the media - controlled by a so-called ‘deep state’ (shadow government) - are colluding to falsely claim that “COVID-19 infection is spreading” in order to stagnate the economy and gain an advantage in the presidential election.

Given that these conspiracy theories were spread through social networking services such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and YouTube, it is clear that social media has become a significant force in shaping people’s beliefs and opinions in the modern era. In other words, social media can be seen as a new medium of expression, forming a digital public sphere where individuals exchange ideas, knowledge and opinions. Unlike broadcasters or other players responsible for journalism, social media platforms do not actively generate content. Nor are they neutral carriers of information like traditional telephone companies. While these platforms rely on user-generated content, they also engage in content moderation by customizing what is displayed, controlling the reach of content and influencing the speed at which it propagates. In this sense, social media acts as content curators within the digital public sphere.

However, social media has so far failed to establish itself as a platform that promotes the public interest and democracy that deserves to be trusted by the general public. In fact, social media today is inundated with problematic content, including conspiracy theories, misinformation, disinformation, pornography, and defamation. This problem is deeply tied to the business models that sustain social media platforms - specifically, issues related to “surveillance capitalism” and the “attention economy.”

Surveillance capitalism is a concept that critically refers to the business model of big tech companies that operate social media and other services, in which users’ personal information is covertly collected as free raw material and used to create and sell predictive algorithms that generate substantial advertising revenue. In this kind of economic order, it has been pointed out that big tech companies even use behavioral targeting ads to influence and manipulate users for their own financial gain1. The attention economy is a similar concept that is used in contrast to the traditional monetary economy. It describes the business model of tech companies that generate profit by selling users’ “attention” to advertisers, measured by metrics such as page views (number of views), impressions (number displayed) and time spent on a page2. Under this business model, social media platforms have little incentive to protect users’ privacy. Instead, they are highly motivated to promote content that attracts attention and interest, often by triggering negative emotions such as anger and fear. This business model plays a significant role in the spread of conspiracy theories.

One critic who has proposed a striking theory to address this issue is Jack Balkin. He is a proponent of the concept of “information fiduciaries,” in which he proposes the transformation of social media platforms into responsible organizers and curators of public discourse3. According to Balkin, there is a stark asymmetry of power and knowledge between tech companies and users in the digital age, which puts users in a particularly vulnerable position. Given this asymmetry, he argues that tech companies that collect and use user data owe “fiduciary duties” to their users – the duties of confidentiality, care, and loyalty. Tech companies positioned as information fiduciaries would be prohibited from using user data to manipulate users or harm their interests. In addition, if they share user data with third parties, they must ensure that those companies also adhere to the same fiduciary duties. According to Balkin, privacy is fundamentally a matter of “trust” between the company collecting the data and the user. The core responsibility of information fiduciaries is to protect that trust by ensuring that it is neither abused nor violated.

Tech companies that position themselves as information fiduciaries must put the interests of users ahead of those of advertisers and limit their profit-driven strategies. This would include imposing restrictions on how user data is collected, the conditions under which it is sold to third parties, and how feeds are curated and content moderated. It would also extend to regulating advertising and recommendation systems that manipulate users or encourage addictive behavior. For example, if a social media platform publicly acknowledges that anti-vaccine propaganda is harmful to users, it would have an obligation to ensure that it does not use user data to spread anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.

While many questions remain to be considered, such as the specific limitations that fiduciary duties would impose on social media platforms in different situations, the idea of building trust between social media and users and of transforming these platforms into responsible media organizations is intriguing and invites further discussion and exploration in the future.

1 S. Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, Public Affairs, 2019 (Japanese translation published by Toyo Keizai Inc., 2021. Translator: Kyoko Nonaka)

2 T. Yamamoto, Dilemma of Attention Economy, KADOKAWA, 2024

3 J. M. Balkin, “To reform social media, reform informational capitalism”, in L. C. Bollinger, G. R. Stone (eds), Social Media, Freedom of Speech and the Future of Our Democracy, Oxford University Press, 2022, pp. 233-254.

Essay All Discours