Next Article in Journal
From Digital Twins to Digital Triplets in Economics and Financial Decision-Making
Next Article in Special Issue
What Options Are Available for Delivering Public Services, and How Do Local Governments Choose Between Them?
Previous Article in Journal
Education and Employment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Special Educational Needs Prevalence in Irish-Immersion Schools
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Entry

Social Media Ethics: Balancing Transparency, AI Marketing, and Misinformation

Department of Business Administration, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 10679 Athens, Greece
Encyclopedia 2025, 5(3), 86; https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030086
Submission received: 4 May 2025 / Revised: 11 June 2025 / Accepted: 19 June 2025 / Published: 20 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Collection Encyclopedia of Social Sciences)

Definition

Social media refers to digital platforms that enable users to create, share, and engage with content within virtual communities. Platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok have democratized content creation, allowing individuals to share ideas, opinions, and experiences with global audiences. Social media has revolutionized the way information is shared and consumed, offering unprecedented opportunities for learning, engagement, and democratic participation. However, this accessibility comes with significant ethical challenges, particularly centered around the paradox of freedom versus harm—the tension between upholding freedom of expression and mitigating the harms of misinformation, privacy violations, and AI-driven bias. This entry explores the dilemmas and opportunities associated with social media, examining how these platforms shape public discourse, influence consumer behavior, and challenge traditional notions of truth and accountability. It aims to provide policymakers, educators, and platform designers with actionable insights to foster ethical social media environments.

1. Introduction

Social media has transformed the way humanity communicates, democratizing information while introducing unprecedented ethical challenges. Platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and TikTok empower individuals to share ideas globally, yet they also amplify misinformation, algorithmic bias, and threats to democratic integrity. This duality presents a fundamental paradox: social media expands freedom of expression but simultaneously risks causing societal harm through unregulated content, manipulative algorithms, and AI-driven marketing.
The stakes are high. The Voller Fairfax Media case in 2021 in Australia set a legal precedent, ruling that media companies could be liable for third-party comments on their social media pages—a decision that underscores the tension between free speech and accountability. Meanwhile, AI-driven marketing—the use of artificial intelligence to personalize and optimize digital advertisements—raises concerns about manipulative microtargeting in elections.
This entry article examines the ethical landscape of social media, focusing on three critical issues:
  • Misinformation and disinformation—How viral falsehoods undermine trust.
  • Algorithmic bias and AI ethics—How automated systems reinforce inequality.
  • Democratic integrity—How social media both empowers and destabilizes governance.
By integrating empirical examples, historical context, and policy implications, we provide a roadmap for balancing digital freedoms with ethical responsibility.

2. The Significance of Ethical Considerations on Social Media

2.1. The Dual-Edged Sword of Social Media

Social media platforms play a significant role in the way information spreads today. It is reported that social media platforms are channels for the dissemination of news and information, making them indispensable sources for people navigating the vast online world [1]. Social media offers advantages, but it also comes with drawbacks to consider carefully.
The speed at which information spreads on platforms can be both a blessing and a curse as it enables the sharing of both accurate and false information. This duality has been emphasized, with researchers pointing out that while social media plays a role in communication during times like the COVID 19 pandemic, it also has the potential to fuel anxiety and spread misinformation [2]. The impact of media on teenagers showcases its edged character. It can foster social bonds while also fueling problems such as addiction and mental health struggles [3].

2.2. The Role of Ethics in Maintaining Public Trust

Public confidence plays a role in ensuring information spreads effectively when social media is employed responsibly. Ethically, it can boost transparency, encourage discussions among the public, and equip individuals with valuable knowledge. As such, the consequences of spreading misinformation are significant as they can contribute to widening divisions and fostering skepticism towards media outlets [4].
Misinformation, aside from the intrusion of privacy, stands out as a concern. Researchers underscore the impact of privacy measures on social media sites, highlighting how these have led to actions that jeopardize user privacy and safety [5]. This breach of privacy could result in a decline in user trust, with individuals feeling that their private data is not sufficiently secure. Thus, tackling these behaviors is essential for rebuilding trust among users and safeguarding the credibility of sharing information in todays’ era.

3. Ethical Dilemmas in Social Media Information Dissemination

3.1. The Spread of Misinformation and Disinformation

Misinformation (inaccurate information) and disinformation (intentionally deceptive information) spread rapidly on social media due to insufficient fact-checking mechanisms, which are mostly processes and tools used to verify the accuracy of information by evaluating claims, consulting credible sources, and leveraging technology to combat misinformation and promote transparency [6]. Although some users engage in fact-checking, many do not, exacerbating the unchecked proliferation of falsehoods. Information overload further complicates users’ ability to assess credibility.
Platforms must prioritize effective fact-checking—the verification of claims to prevent misinformation—while considering users’ cognitive biases and belief systems that influence their reception of fact-checking efforts.

3.2. Privacy Concerns and Algorithmic Bias

The rapid accumulation and monetization of user data raise serious privacy concerns, especially regarding AI-driven marketing, which employs machine learning algorithms to analyze user data for targeted advertising. While efficient for businesses, it exposes users to manipulative tactics and ethical concerns over consent and data exploitation. Managing data ethically is key for medium businesses as they navigate using social media for business advantages while also prioritizing user privacy [7]. Corporate strategies on media can significantly impact how knowledge is explored and exploited. This raises questions about the governance of user data and ethical responsibilities [8].
Algorithms—computational rules that determine content visibility—also perpetuate biases, creating echo chambers and fostering groupthink, where users prioritize consensus over critical thinking. This exacerbates societal polarization and undermines democratic discourse. Research [9] highlights the effects of spaces on the evolution of opinions and stresses the importance of transparency in algorithms to help users comprehend their influence over participation. This is further supported by studies [10,11]. Additionally, AI algorithms play a crucial role, in perpetuating biases and social divisions. Research on TikTok sheds light on the challenges of content moderation and the real-world impacts of bias on risk communities [12]. Min [13] stresses that the importance of transparency and fairness in design to reduce bias and discrimination issues underlines the pressing need for strategies to tackle and lessen the impact of bias in decision-making processes.
Therefore, upholding ethical standards is crucial for maintaining the positive aspects of social media without compromising individual rights and societal trust. Lastly, algorithmic bias and discrimination awareness are essential for promoting fair and impartial information sharing on social platforms.

3.3. The Ethics of Content Moderation and the Role of Artificial Intelligence

Content moderation is central to maintaining ethical standards. Platforms struggle to balance free expression with the removal of harmful content like hate speech and harassment. Increasingly, AI systems are employed for moderation, but these systems introduce challenges around transparency, accountability, and bias [14].
An illustrative legal precedent is the Voller case in Australia, where the High Court ruled that media companies could be held liable for defamatory user comments on their social media pages. This underscores the growing legal complexities of platform responsibility.
Studies on how Facebook users find ways to work around content moderation rules and the restrictions on disturbing self-harm images on Instagram and Facebook emphasize the importance of improving moderation approaches [15]. AI is now utilized in overseeing content on social media platforms to improve effectiveness and scalability. This dependence on AI raises questions of concern too. It is reported that the hurdles of AI improve the precision and significance of information while they make decisions in moderation [10,16]. AI can assist moderators in minimizing exposure to content without compromising accuracy, considering the impact on human moderators [17]. In this context, researchers examine algorithm-based content moderation and raise important ethical questions about the use of AI in moderation, particularly regarding bias, transparency, and accountability [18].
In summary, defining what constitutes content and ensuring clear moderation practices without resorting to censorship require careful analysis to protect users, fostering a positive online environment. In order to guarantee effective processes, the ethical application of AI marketing in content moderation requires oversight, transparency, and accountability.

4. The Scientific Impact of Ethical Social Media Use

The Role of Social Media in Scientific Communication

Social media enables the rapid dissemination of scientific findings and fosters global scholarly collaboration. However, ethical standards must ensure the accuracy of information, prevent sensationalism, and manage conflicts of interest. During crises like COVID-19, ethical scientific communication becomes even more critical to maintain public trust and guide evidence-based decisions.
The utilization of social media platforms for scientific communication has revolutionized the publication of research and the dissemination of findings among researchers and the general populace. Ethical dimensions of communicating science and scientific information on social media sites are vital, assuming that the credibility and the dependability of the scientific data and information have to be conserved within the scientific community. In times of crisis, one needs social media, as seen in the case of the COVID 19 pandemic [19], and ethical scientific communication becomes even more critical to maintain public trust and guide evidence-based decisions [20,21].
To conclude, institutional stakeholders should establish guidelines for ethical recruitment, informed consent, and responsible data sharing when research participants are engaged through social media platforms.

5. The Societal Impact of Ethical Social Media Use

5.1. Promoting Social Justice and Equity

Social causes, justice, and equity can be moved ahead by social media if underrepresented groups are given a voice, building concern about important issues for society and encouraging people to think and work as a community. This refines how people believe a group may influence others in participating in actions or the “collective efficacy” [22]. Social sites are essential and their worth is similarly significant, as social media gives a voice to silent individuals, with any event of terror, rioting, or personal restriction leading people to connect via the site. The investigation by Enjolras and Salway [23] effectively examines how social media usage impacts offline social behaviors. Consequently, it can be asserted that this connection is employed by social sites for the general populace. The given examples show the ethical issues that researchers face when communicating their findings through social media. For scientific discourse to remain trustworthy and uphold ethical standards, it is essential that information be accurate, that sensationalism be avoided, and that conflicts of interest be disclosed.

5.2. The Impact on Mental Health and Well-Being

Different mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem, can also be multiplied by the influence of social media. Ethical design must incorporate features that minimize addictive behaviors, protect users from harmful content, and support mental well-being. Sinyor and colleagues [24] have recently conducted extensive research on suicides urged in tweets. The conclusions suggest that social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (now X) can play a pivotal role in identifying reporters who are at risk and provide them with proper care. Platform features such as endless scrolling, likes, and notifications must be carefully evaluated for their psychological impact.
The examples provided point to just a few of the ethical questions that need to be kept in mind when designing and utilizing social media. Responsible and ethical use of social media involves encouraging healthy online practices, protecting people from consuming harmful content, and addressing the mental impacts social media has on a person.

5.3. Ethical Design of Social Media Platforms

Social media platforms are very influential when it comes to user behavior. Their design and them being in the limelight often have a huge impact. Features like notifications, endless scrolling, and likes are so designed even though they claim to have your well-being at heart. It becomes hard for users to avoid addictive behavior, and it is detrimental to their mental health. Bilderback [25] explains the undesirable effects of encouraging positive online habits and protecting users from content. The effects on mental well-being also need deliberation. Lee and colleagues [26] display how the designers of social media platforms are ethically bound to think of the mental cost that engagement metrics like ‘likes’ have on users. When teenagers get lesser ‘likes’, they undergo a lot of psychological pain [27]. Thus, platform designers should have an ethical obligation to their users to ensure that social media is a source of social support rather than a cause of mental health issues [28].
In conclusion, ethical design principles, such as prioritizing user well-being, promoting digital literacy, and providing tools for self-regulation, are essential for creating social media platforms that support positive mental health (Figure 1).

5.4. The Role of Social Media in Democracy and Governance

Social media has been both beneficial and detrimental, leading to ethical dilemmas in democracies due to misinformation, polarization, and the effect of elections [29]. If used ethically, social media can be wonderful for democracies by serving to empower rather than to lessen the individual [29]. According to Rahman [30], social media can lead to disorder in democracies by manipulating the public opinion and thus elections. Social media can either wholly empower or be a serious detriment to our democracy and can be easily abused due to the constant misinformation spread on various platforms [30]. It is a platform’s ethical obligations to work alongside the police and other agencies to stop hateful and fake information spreading, as during India’s 2019 presidential campaigns. This was a useful way to start to engage more people in politics, resulting in India’s highest voter turnout [31]. Ethically, the role of social media is to provide people with information, not change their perception to fit the vote, as the point of voting is to choose what you believe is right [32]. Finally, the sources demonstrate the ethical issues involved in using social media to promote democracy. These include fighting misinformation, protecting electoral integrity, and empowering people with social media.

6. Opportunities for Ethical Social Media Use

6.1. Promoting Digital Literacy and Critical Thinking

Ethics in social media have been crucial in the response to the problems of low levels of digital literacy and low levels of critical thinking, and these have called for more active and responsible engagement. Consent and the willingness of research participants have been considered [33], while [34] looked at learning media that develop critical thinking. Yasâ [35] presents findings on the positive impact of education on social media ethics for vocational students with regard to understanding proper behavior online. A systematic review focusing on the study of social networking sites’ (SNSs’) capacity for sustainable education highlighted a pressing need for critical thinking and digital literacy in education [36]. Fitri [37] investigated the influence of adolescent social media activity and social relationships on critical thought, providing the basis for programs supporting young users to cultivate more constructive forms of engagement with social media content. Pomichal [38] studied game-based learning and indicated the necessity of education strategies empowering the responsible use of social media. Thus, social media literacy and engagement require active commitments, such as participation and content creation, which enhance critical thinking, aid in addressing misinformation, and through ethical considerations, advance the public good.

6.2. Fostering Inclusive and Diverse Communities

Realizing the capacity that social media holds in creating inclusive societies by amplifying the voices of the neglected and enabling inclusivity and cross-cultural communication is becoming evident within academic writing. Fazil [39] investigates how social media is helping to close cultural gaps and enable international communication, pointing out that social media campaigns are often used as tools for educating people on different cultures and encouraging plurality, which indeed speaks to the possibility of these tools increasing intercultural understanding across the globe. This poses a challenge on the use of social media for positive social change from an ethical point of view. In this manner, community media including social media have a constructive role in perpetuating stereotypes and bringing about understanding by aiding in cultural contact through exchange [40]. This indicates the ability that social media has in fostering diverse communities. The realization of the importance of social media in building inclusive societies and encouraging acosmic interactions among user groups makes social media crucial in improving cross-cultural communication [41]. Social media provides an opportunity for innovative dialogue about social justice, potentially increasing social good through the promotion of inclusiveness and understanding among heterogenous groups [42]. Pradhan and Singh [43] highlight the role of social media in relationship- and community-building among users as a tool for fostering inclusiveness and improving public health. This exemplifies the role that social media has in bettering public health. In addition, [44] emphasizes social media as a positive influencer of culture and the norms and values of people, focusing on advocating diversity and inclusion, along with the need to use social media ethically for social good.
These factors emphasize the need for ethical practices in harnessing social media for social good. Key ethical considerations in this realm involve tackling online harassment, fighting against hate speech, and making sure that social media platforms are accessible to everyone, regardless of their background or abilities.
Figure 2 illustrates key strategies for tackling the ethical dilemmas associated with social media use.

6.3. Fostering Ethical Cultures

According to [20], there should be guiding principles for conducting palliative and end-of-life care research on issues concerning consent and participants’ privacy. Khangpiboon [45] shows the need for training among social workers concerning ethical practices in engaging strategies and in confidentiality towards patients. Lim and colleagues [46] observe that high school students’ and adolescents’ involvement as key informants in research helps to promote ethical behavior, ensuring confidentiality and preventing irresponsible disclosure. Bashir and colleagues [47] stress the importance of an educational campaign focused on active participation and thinking to analyze the content of media where children are suffering most and emphasize control measures. Wall and colleagues [48] discuss the use of social media and adherence to public health measures for infection prevention in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular attention to the use of ethics in communication during crises. As such, having clear guidelines for ethical social media use is essential for fostering responsible practices and ensuring public well-being.

6.4. Leveraging Technology for Ethics

Cutting-edge technologies such as the AI and blockchain-based platforms (e.g., Mastodon) offer models for user-controlled social media, reducing the reliance on profit-driven algorithms. They have the potential to advance ethical practices with social media, especially with content moderation, transparency, and accessibility. AI can aid moderation by differentiating between harmful and non-harmful content, while stressing the importance of transparency in the process [49]. Ethical issues should be at the forefront when developing AI that can correctly flag and mitigate damaging content [50]. As such, blockchain technology will improve online social media ethics by increasing the transparency and responsibility of sharing information [51]. Such improvements can increase traceability and responsibility in the use of social media, thus fostering the ethical dissemination of information [10]. User accessibility may be enhanced with tools like decentralized platforms that offer greater privacy, overcoming major obstacles with social media and increasing ethical actions and inclusivity [52]. Ethically responsible design principles must be put to use by developers in the design of broader audience platforms [53].
The possibility of technologies promoting transparency, accountability, and accessibility is invaluable. In this way, users can be protected and promoted to think with a social conscience. It is precisely because of these outcomes that ethical frameworks must be established. There is a higher probability of responsibility in practice concerning the use of social media technologies when there are ethical frameworks.

7. Conclusions

The ethical challenges surrounding social media remain multifaceted and deeply consequential for individual rights, social cohesion, and democratic institutions. Central to these challenges is the paradox of freedom versus harm—balancing the open exchange of information with the urgent need to protect users from misinformation, algorithmic bias, privacy violations, and political manipulation.
Empirical cases such as the Australian Voller decision illustrate the complex legal landscape in which platform liability is increasingly scrutinized. Similarly, AI-driven marketing, while commercially powerful, raises concerns over user manipulation and exploitation of personal data. The unchecked proliferation of misinformation continues to undermine democratic integrity, exacerbate polarization, and disrupt public trust.
To navigate these dilemmas, actionable strategies must be implemented across stakeholders. Policymakers should pursue balanced regulatory frameworks that safeguard freedom of expression while enforcing accountability mechanisms for platforms. Educators must prioritize digital literacy and critical thinking curricula to empower users to discern credible information. Platform designers should embrace ethical-by-design principles, including transparent algorithms, robust content moderation, and built-in mental health safeguards. The adoption of AI and blockchain technologies must prioritize transparency, fairness, and user autonomy rather than simply operational efficiency

Limitations and Future Research

This analysis, while comprehensive, is limited to using studies focused on Western democracies. Moreover, its reliance on secondary sources lacks longitudinal empirical data across diverse global contexts. Future research should explore comparative studies of regulatory approaches, the long-term psychological effects of social media algorithms, and the role of emerging decentralized platforms in reshaping ethical norms. Moreover, interdisciplinary collaboration will be essential to anticipate new ethical frontiers as AI, augmented reality, and metaverse technologies become further entwined with social media ecosystems.
By addressing these issues proactively, societies can harness the positive potential of social media while safeguarding individual well-being, public discourse, and democratic resilience.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIArtificial Intelligence
COVID-19Coronavirus Disease 2019
SNSsSocial Networking Sites

References

  1. Fouad, K.M.; Sabbeh, S.F.; Medhat, W. Arabic fake news detection using deep learning. Comput. Mater. Contin./Comput. Mater. Contin. Print 2021, 71, 3647–3665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pennington, N. Quitting social media: A qualitative exploration of communication outcomes. Qual. Res. Rep. Commun. 2020, 22, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Masoed, E.S.; Omar, R.A.E.A.T.; Magd, A.N.A.E. Social media addiction among adolescents: Its relationship to sleep quality and life satisfaction. Int. J. Res. Paediatr. Nurs. 2021, 3, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ahmed, K.A.; Abdulbaqi, S.S.; Aliagan, I.Z. Corruption in the media: Implications for ethical and socially responsible journalism. J. Pengaj. Media. Malays. 2020, 22, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barrett-Maitland, N.; Lynch, J. Social Media, Ethics and the Privacy Paradox; Kalloniatis, C., Travieso-Gonzalez, C., Eds.; IntechOpen Limited: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jia, C.; Lee, T. Journalistic interventions matter: Understanding how Americans perceive fact-checking labels. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Goel, L.; Donaldson, J. Social media exploration and exploitation by small and medium enterprises for business continuity. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 2021, 29, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Castillo, A.; Benitez, J.; Liorens, J. Impact of social media on the firm’s knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation: The role of Business Analytics Talent. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2021, 22, 1472–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pansanella, V.; Rossetti, G.; Milli, L. Modeling algorithmic bias: Simplicial complexes and evolving network topologies. Appl. Netw. Sci. 2022, 7, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mohamed, E.A.S.; Osman, M.E.; Mohamed, B.A. The impact of artificial intelligence on social media content. J. Soc. Sci. 2024, 20, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Swart, J. Experiencing Algorithms: How young people understand, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news selection on social media. Soc. Media.+ Soc. 2021, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vera, V. Nonsuicidal Self-Injury and content moderation on TikTok. Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2023, 60, 1164–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Min, A. Artifical Intelligence and Bias: Challenges, implications, and remedies. J. Soc. Res. 2023, 2, 3808–3817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gilbert, S.; Shilton, K.; Vitak, J. When research is the context: Cross-platform user expectations for social media data reuse. Big. Data. Soc. 2023, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zannettou, S. “I Won the Election!”: An Empirical Analysis of Soft Moderation Interventions on Twitter. Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media 2021, 15, 865–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Samory, M. On positive moderation decisions. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Virtual, 7–10 June 2021; AAAI Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2021; Volume 15, pp. 585–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Das, A.; Dang, B.; Lease, M. Fast, accurate, and healthier: Interactive blurring helps moderators reduce exposure to harmful content. Proc. AAAI Conf. Hum. Comput. Crowdsourcing. 2020, 8, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gorwa, R.; Binns, R.; Katzenbach, C. Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data Soc. 2020, 7, 205395171989794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, J.; Sun, L.; Feng, X.; He, P.; Zhang, Y. Social media communication of the scientific and technological literature in emergency under COVID-19. Libr. Hi Tech 2021, 39, 796–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, Y. Social media for palliative and end-of-life care research: A systematic review. BMJ Support. Palliat. Care 2024, 14, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Flood-Grady, E.; Solberg, L.B.; Baralt, C.; Meyer, M.; Stevens, J.; Krieger, J.L. Engaging institutional stakeholders to develop and implement guidelines for recruiting participants in research studies using social media: Mixed Methods, Multi-Phase Process. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e23312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, A.; Chung, T.L.D. Transparency in corporate social responsibility communication on social media. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2023, 51, 590–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Enjolras, B.; Salway, A. Homophily and polarization on political twitter during the 2017 Norwegian election. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 2022, 13, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sinyor, M.; Williams, M.; Zaheer, R.; Loureiro, R.; Pirkis, J.; Heisel, M.J.; Schaffer, A.; Redelmeier, D.A.; Cheung, A.H.; Niederkrotenthaler, T. The Association between Twitter Content and Suicide. Aust. New Zealand J. Psychiatry 2021, 55, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bilderback, S. I will see you in the summer: Assessing the cognitive impact of social media on employee engagement. Strateg. HR Rev. 2024, 23, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lee, H.Y.; Jamieson, J.P.; Reis, H.T.; Beevers, C.G.; Josephs, R.A.; Mullarkey, M.C.; O’Brien, J.M.; Yeager, D.S. Getting fewer “Likes” than others on social media elicits emotional distress among victimized adolescents. Child Dev. 2020, 91, 2141–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Brough, M.; Literat, I.; Ikin, A. “Good social media?”: Underrepresented youth perspectives on the ethical and equitable design of social media platforms. Soc. Media + Soc. 2020, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gu, X. Social Support and the Social Media Engagement about the Young Users. Commun. Humanit. Res. 2024, 30, 146–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Omotayo, F.; Folorunso, M.B. Use of social media for political participation by youths. JeDEM—Ejournal Edemocracy Open Gov. 2020, 12, 132–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rahman, S.U.; Shurong, Z. Military Organization’s Use of Social Media and Its Relationship with Politics: Evidence from Pakistan. SAGE Open. 2024, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nwozor, A.; Ajakaiye, O.O.; Okidu, O.; Olanrewaju, A.; Afolabi, O. Social media in politics: Interrogating electorate-driven hate speech in nigeria’s 2019 presidential campaigns. JEDEM eJ. eDemocr. Open Gov. 2022, 14, 104–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Okon, P.E.; Ekpang, J.E., II. The 2019 Nigerian presidential elections and the resurgence of the magic bullet theory of media effect. Int. J. Commun. Soc. 2021, 3, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lau, A.Y.S.; Staccini, P. Social media, research, and ethics: Does participant willingness matter? Yearb. Med. Inform. 2020, 29, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Doyan, A.; Gunawan, G.; Susilawati, S.; Khasanah, B.U.; Hakim, S. Quantum Phenomenon learning media used in Think Pair share models of learning for critical thinking skills. In Proceedings of the 4th Asian Education Symposium (AES 2019), Manado, Indonesia, 14–15 August 2019; Atlantis Press: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yasâ, M.; Hufad, A.; Komariah, S. The comprehension of social media ethics by rina hasanah vocational school students. Jupiis J. Pendidik. Ilmu-Ilmu Sos. 2023, 15, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cavus, N.; Sani, A.S.; Haruna, Y.; Lawan, A.A. Efficacy of Social Networking Sites for Sustainable Education in the Era of COVID-19: A Systematic Review. Sustain. 2021, 13, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fitri, A.Z. The Effect of Critical Thinking on Social Media Use, tolerance, and Self-Assessment of Adolescents in Tulungagung, Indonesia. Tech. Soc. Sci. J. 2021, 26, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pomichal, V. Hoaxes in social media: Can game-based learning beat them? In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Social Media-ECSM 2024, Brighton, UK, 30–31 May 2024; Academic Conferences International Limited: Reading, UK, 2024; Volume 11, pp. 326–334. [Google Scholar]
  39. Fazil, A.W.; Hakimi, M.; Akrami, K.; Akrami, M.; Akrami, F. Exploring the role of social media in bridging gaps and facilitating global communication. Stud. Media J. Commun. 2024, 2, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gjerazi, B. Media and communication Strategies for conflict Prevention and resolution. Interdiscip. J. Res. Dev. 2023, 10, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cao, D.; Meadows, M.; Wong, D.; Xia, S. Understanding consumers’ social media engagement behaviour: An examination of the moderation effect of social media context. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 122, 835–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Madden, S.; Alt, R.A. Know her name: Open dialogue on social media as a form of innovative justice. Soc. Media + Soc. 2021, 7, 2056305120984447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pradhan, J.; Singh, S. Unraveling the impact of social media on interpersonal communication and relationship. Int. J. Res. Publ. Rev. 2023, 4, 1622–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Granic, I.; Morita, H.; Scholten, H. Beyond Screen Time: Identity Development in the Digital Age. Psychol. Inq. 2020, 31, 195–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Khangpiboon, K.; Nimtaluong, P.; Jundai, R. Ethics responsibility: Using social media of social work practice in Thailand. Asean Soc. Work. J. 2023, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lim, T.E.; Bongato, J.M.; Bungabong, G.K.; Dalapo, S.; Mumar, A.A.; Petersdorf, C.; Sevilla, E.J.; Oracion, X.V.; Manhilot, C.; Roslinda, G. Knowledge, Attitudes, And Practices on the Use of social media for Academic Requirements Among Nursing Students of the University of Bohol. ACADEME Univ. Bohol Grad. Sch. Prof. Stud. 2022, 20, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bashir, I.; Malik, A.; Mahmood, K. Measuring personal and academic differences in students’ perceived social media credibility. Digit. Libr. Perspect. 2021, 38, 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wall, R.; Evers, J.; Haydock, D. An international systematic review concerning the effect of social media exposure on public compliance with infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Infect. Prev. 2023, 24, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Chatterjee, S.; Chaudhuri, R.; Vrontis, D.; Ajith Kumar, V.V. Adoption of blockchain technology in organizations: From morality, ethics and sustainability perspectives. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc. 2024, 22, 38–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mohammed, I.; Nangpiire, C.; Detoh, W.M.; Fataw, Y. The effect of blockchain technology in enhancing ethical sourcing and supply chain transparency: Evidence from the cocoa and agricultural sectors in ghana. Afr. J. Empir. Res. 2024, 5, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tan, T.M.; Salo, J. Ethical Marketing in the Blockchain-Based Sharing Economy: Theoretical integration and guiding insights. J. Bus. Ethics. 2021, 183, 1113–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hisseine, M.A.; Chen, D.; Yang, X. The Application of Blockchain in Social Media: A Systematic Literature Review. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dahiya, A.; Gupta, B.B.; Alhalabi, W.; Ulrichd, K. A comprehensive analysis of blockchain and its applications in intelligent systems based on IoT, cloud and social media. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2022, 37, 11037–11077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Balancing ethical challenges in social media.
Figure 1. Balancing ethical challenges in social media.
Encyclopedia 05 00086 g001
Figure 2. Navigating the challenges of ethical concerns.
Figure 2. Navigating the challenges of ethical concerns.
Encyclopedia 05 00086 g002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Skandali, D. Social Media Ethics: Balancing Transparency, AI Marketing, and Misinformation. Encyclopedia 2025, 5, 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030086

AMA Style

Skandali D. Social Media Ethics: Balancing Transparency, AI Marketing, and Misinformation. Encyclopedia. 2025; 5(3):86. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030086

Chicago/Turabian Style

Skandali, Dimitra. 2025. "Social Media Ethics: Balancing Transparency, AI Marketing, and Misinformation" Encyclopedia 5, no. 3: 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030086

APA Style

Skandali, D. (2025). Social Media Ethics: Balancing Transparency, AI Marketing, and Misinformation. Encyclopedia, 5(3), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030086

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop