Position: Generative AI Regulation Can Learn from Social Media Regulation

Ruth Elisabeth Appel

TL;DR: This paper argues that generative AI regulation can be informed by social media regulation.

Abstract: There is strong agreement that generative AI should be regulated, but strong disagreement on how to approach regulation. While some argue that AI regulation should mostly rely on extensions of existing laws, others argue that entirely new laws and regulations are needed to ensure that generative AI benefits society. In this position paper, we argue that the debates on generative AI regulation can be informed by evidence on social media regulation. For example, AI companies have faced allegations of political bias which resemble the allegations social media companies have faced. First, we compare and contrast the affordances of generative AI and social media to highlight their similarities and differences. Then, we discuss four specific policy recommendations based on the evolution of social media and their regulation: (1) counter bias and perceptions thereof (e.g., via transparency, oversight boards, researcher access, democratic input), (2) address specific regulatory concerns (e.g., youth wellbeing, election integrity) and invest in trust and safety, (3) promote computational social science research, and (4) take on a more global perspective. Applying lessons learnt from social media regulation to generative AI regulation can save effort and time, and prevent avoidable mistakes.

Lay Summary:

There is strong disagreement about how generative AI should be regulated.

This paper argues that generative AI regulation can be informed by social media regulation. Concrete lessons include the need to (1) counter bias or perceptions of bias, for example via transparency measures, (2) invest in trust and safety, (3) promote computational social science research, and (4) take on a more global perspective.

Learning from social media regulation can help save time and effort, and prevent avoidable mistakes when it comes to AI regulation.

Verify Author Names: My co-authors have confirmed that their names are spelled correctly both on OpenReview and in the camera-ready PDF. (If needed, please update ‘Preferred Name’ in OpenReview to match the PDF.)

No Additional Revisions: I understand that after the May 29 deadline, the camera-ready submission cannot be revised before the conference. I have verified with all authors that they approve of this version.

Pdf Appendices: My camera-ready PDF file contains both the main text (not exceeding the page limits) and all appendices that I wish to include. I understand that any other supplementary material (e.g., separate files previously uploaded to OpenReview) will not be visible in the PMLR proceedings.

Latest Style File: I have compiled the camera ready paper with the latest ICML2025 style files <https://media.icml.cc/Conferences/ICML2025/Styles/icml2025.zip> and the compiled PDF includes an unnumbered Impact Statement section.

Paper Verification Code: NDg5N

Primary Area: Social, Ethical, and Environmental Impacts

Keywords: generative AI, social media, regulation

Submission Number: 440