Social media companies have become fragile and distorted from the ideals of internet

Bloomberg reported about the paradox of YouTube: this financially successful company is said to be having "its worst year ever" what comes to content. The article shows flashes of Alex Jones, Pewdipie and some random fooling as critical issues for corporate responsibility.

This is yet another example of "extended corporate social responsibility". Social media companies have been distorted from the original ideals of internet, neutral platforms and actual diversity of the mankind, including grain and twist. Instead, they seem to think they are responsible for enforcing a moral compass beyond compliance of legal frameworks. As enormous centralized services tumble with a pretense of moral highness and idealism, they end up encouraging exactly the things they claim to be worried about. It must be noted that their part is not an easy one. These challenges are more complex and related to current business models involving difficult stakeholders.

It seems like a risk transfer problem or a "supply chain of risk management". Advertisers demand more control over the content they are associated with, as media and social media have become more sensitive to generate drama by slight association. In fact, these questions can be traced back to underlying control philosophies and risk (in)tolerances of our society. Discussions after brexit and Trump reveal fragility in the way how people perceive the ideal of neutrality on the internet. Noisy social justice activists with a controlling mentality have become intoxicated by the power and influence of the modern media. That appears to be exactly what makes their favorite platforms problematizing themselves and accidentally paving the way for disruption and counter-cultures.