How Legacy Media Will Attempt to Interfere with Social Media to Regain Control of the Narrative
As engagement media (social media) continues to gain dominance over legacy media, it presents a significant challenge to the control and influence that legacy outlets once enjoyed. To regain control of the narrative, legacy media will likely attempt to interfere with engagement media by using several strategies, both direct and covert. These strategies will aim to co-opt, censor, or delegitimize social media platforms in an effort to restore their gatekeeping role over information and public discourse.
1. Framing Free Speech as Dangerous
One of the most common tactics legacy media will use is to frame the concept of free speech as inherently dangerous. This will be done by publishing articles and airing news segments that focus on the supposed threats posed by unregulated speech on social media platforms. They will likely push the narrative that "too much free speech" leads to the spread of harmful ideas, such as extremism, disinformation, or conspiracy theories.
By emphasizing outlier incidents or highlighting extreme content, legacy media can paint a picture of social media as a threat to societal stability, thus justifying efforts to censor or regulate these platforms. This rhetoric allows them to suggest that freedom of speech on social media needs to be limited in the interest of safety and social harmony.
2. Labeling Disagreement as "Disinformation"
Legacy media will likely weaponize the term “disinformation” to attack any narratives or viewpoints they do not like or that challenge the establishment. Whenever alternative viewpoints emerge on engagement platforms that counter legacy media's narratives—whether about politics, health, or finance—those ideas will be quickly labeled as "disinformation" or "misinformation."
This tactic is effective because it delegitimizes the content, framing it as false or harmful without engaging in substantive debate. By casting dissenting voices or independent creators as purveyors of misinformation, legacy media can shift public opinion toward favoring more regulation of social media platforms, under the guise of “protecting the truth.”
3. Collaboration with Governments and NGOs
Another powerful tool legacy media will use is collaboration with governments and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations). By working hand-in-hand with governments and influential NGOs, legacy outlets will push for the implementation of policies and regulations that directly interfere with engagement media.
They will lobby governments to create laws and frameworks that grant more control over what can be posted online. These policies could include vague language around "hate speech," "disinformation," and "public safety," making it easier for platforms to be forced to comply with government-backed censorship demands. NGOs, often seen as neutral arbiters, will also play a role by amplifying media narratives about the dangers of "unregulated" social platforms, adding legitimacy to the push for control.
4. De-legitimizing Social Media Platforms
Legacy media will also seek to delegitimize engagement media through character assassination and reputational attacks. This will include portraying platforms like Gab, Minds, or Nostr as havens for extremists, conspiracy theorists, or bad actors. Articles and reports will frame these platforms as being rife with illegal activities or malicious content, and they will frequently suggest that the platforms enable criminal behavior by promoting unfiltered communication.
The goal of this tactic is to erode public trust in social media as a legitimate source of information. By undermining the credibility of these platforms, legacy media seeks to steer audiences back toward "trusted" legacy outlets, thereby regaining influence over the narrative.
5. Pushing for Greater Platform Moderation and Content Control
Legacy media will pressure social platforms to adopt stricter moderation policies, often through public campaigns that highlight the worst examples of content found on these platforms. By emphasizing the "need for safety," they will push companies to increase content moderation, leading to more censorship of dissenting opinions, under the pretext of maintaining a safe environment.
These calls for moderation will be backed by partnerships with fact-checking organizations, many of which will be linked to legacy media networks themselves. In this way, legacy media can embed its own editorial standards within engagement platforms, ensuring that only narratives they approve of get widely disseminated.
6. Flooding Engagement Platforms with "Influencers" and Corporate Accounts
In an attempt to co-opt engagement media directly, legacy media may flood social platforms with corporate accounts, influencers, and "trusted voices" that represent their interests. These influencers will be positioned as authoritative sources of truth, aiming to crowd out independent voices. By injecting these legacy media-backed personalities and narratives into engagement platforms, they can subtly begin to control discourse by leveraging the algorithms that boost content from "verified" or "authoritative" sources.
7. Sponsoring and Controlling Algorithms
Another way legacy media may seek to interfere with social platforms is by influencing the algorithms that determine which content users see. By sponsoring partnerships with social platforms, legacy media could gain influence over the algorithms, subtly promoting content from legacy outlets while suppressing independent creators or alternative viewpoints.
For example, algorithms could be designed to prioritize content from mainstream sources or to flag content that deviates from certain "accepted" narratives. This would allow legacy media to reclaim control over the flow of information without overtly censoring content, making the manipulation harder to detect.
8. Shifting Advertisers Away from Independent Platforms
Legacy media could pressure advertisers to boycott or pull funding from engagement media platforms by associating them with negative reputations. By labeling platforms as "unsafe" due to their free speech policies, legacy media can scare advertisers away from sponsoring independent content creators. This economic pressure could force some platforms to compromise on free speech principles or shut down altogether if they can’t secure sufficient revenue.
9. Discrediting the Financial Viability of Engagement Media
To discourage investors and users from supporting engagement platforms, legacy media may run stories that question the financial stability of independent social platforms, claiming they are unsustainable or unreliable. By painting these platforms as unstable or as fringe, they hope to divert users and investors away, thus stifling the growth of these alternatives.
Conclusion
Legacy media is unlikely to relinquish control over public discourse easily. To regain influence, it will deploy a variety of tactics to co-opt or censor engagement media. These include framing free speech as dangerous, labeling dissent as disinformation, collaborating with governments and NGOs to restrict speech, delegitimizing platforms, and manipulating content moderation policies. They will also work to insert their influence into engagement platforms through partnerships, algorithm manipulation, and flooding social media with corporate-backed influencers. The long-term survival of free and open social media will depend on users, developers, and independent creators remaining vigilant and resisting these tactics, ensuring that platforms remain decentralized and open to diverse voices.