With Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms taking action to censor content, as well as banning individuals they deem harmful, a significant amount of discourse has been opened regarding free speech and censorship.
What is the role of social media in our world, and what should be done about the increasing amounts of censorship? Is censorship necessary to protect a platform’s users — and should a private platform be pressured to censor its content at all?
First: freedom of speech is commonly misunderstood. Freedom of speech applies to censorship from the government: the government is not allowed to demand that Facebook or another social media platform delete content. As a private enterprise, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies are allowed to control what shows up on their sites.
Even freedom of speech has limitations, the most common of which being shouting “Fire!” in a crowded room. Any speech that could cause injury to someone else is often limited, such as incitations to violence, believable threats, verbal harassment, and slander.
So, what does this mean for the future of a massive social media industry? Let’s take a look.
The Financial Consequences of Free Speech
Due to an increasingly ethics-driven audience committed to voting with their dollars, many companies have become cautious about the type of speech that they promote. Social media giants are no different: they have started censoring controversial or potentially dangerous opinions as a way of making sure that their user base continues to grow.
As a new initiative of corporate responsibility, Facebook and others are trying to also reduce harm. Some studies have shown that social media can be used to radicalize people because of the echo chamber effect. When users tailor their social media to their beliefs, those beliefs are reinforced — because all they see are those beliefs.
It’s very important to note that Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms aren’t censoring their content because of government or legal pressure. They’re censoring content for their public image. That is a private decision made by a private corporation — which is what makes it legal and not an issue of free speech. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a positive.
A Question of Censorship
While it’s understandable that social media would want to remove anything harmful from their site, there’s also become a question of where they line will be drawn, and what makes an idea harmful. And many question whether that could make the visible internet more of an echo chamber rather than less of an echo chamber.
Social media has become a public utility in many ways. Twitter, for instance, has been used for public communications when governments have taken their own communications down. As an area where public discourse occurs, the question becomes whether companies may have too much power when it comes to potential censorship.
As an example, Twitter could choose, as a corporate entity, to suppress information about a progressive candidate or a conservative candidate if it deemed their followers harmful. In doing so, it would be directly interfering with a public election, but in a way that is technically legal. This has not become an issue yet, but it could become one in the future.
Liability and Social Media
In terms of censorship and free speech, social media platforms are caught in the middle. If they’re too restrictive, they’re censoring an individual’s right to display their opinions. But if they are too lax, they can become responsible for the opinions that are allowed to fester on their site.
Recent new regulations have made websites responsible for not policing the content on their websites. The European Union has been spearheading new initiatives to control illegal activity on content platforms which has led to the shutting down of many adult-oriented sites.
Thus, social media platforms are faced with the unenviable task of determining when speech becomes hate speech, when online posts become calls to violence, and when chatting online can become a realistic threat. The easiest and most upfront method is for social media sites to maintain relatively restrictive content rules, which they then privately enforce.
The World is Swiftly Changing
The digital world is going to need to adapt to new and growing threats — threats which come from a combination of communication and globalization. Social media platforms have become so critical for many people’s lives, that there’s no real way for a society to avoid its impact. And because social media platforms are private companies, it’s really up to each private company to determine how they’re going to react — and it’s up to consumers to determine whether they want to continue supporting that company.
With increasing studies coming out that online platforms can radicalize individuals, as well as causing depression and anxiety in many, governments and citizens will need to work together to find ways to adapt to the new technology while also reducing harm. But the answer is not censorship: the answer is finding new ways to open a discussion.
Regards,
Ethan Warrick
Editor
Wealth Authority
