The internet is arguably the most important forum for exchanging ideas and views, allowing people to connect with others from around the world at any time. In this way, it resembles the public forums of ancient Greece, where philosophical, political, and artistic ideas were actively debated. Today, the internet is perhaps the greatest battleground for free speech, as authoritarian governments increasingly try to censor their critics. Social media platforms have also amplified extremism and hate speech to an unprecedented degree.
In most, if not all, Western countries, laws like the First Amendment protect people from government censorship. When governments try to regulate or influence what social media platforms promote, they risk violating these fundamental rights. If people are afraid that businesses have too much power to infringe on their freedom of speech, they should be terrified of what kind of power governments have. Allowing governments to censor social media sets a dangerous precedent.
An argument for regulating free speech on social media is that the current largest social media companies have essentially created monopolies, and that other companies should be allowed to compete by breaking up the big ones. However, users benefit the most from being on a dominant platform. People who want to break up these companies should create their own platforms where their own ideas can be expressed freely, instead of expecting the government to intervene.
Much of the online censorship today comes from social media companies, not governments. These companies police content according to their terms of service agreements, which often restrict hateful speech and other harmful content. For example, YouTube and Apple have removed hateful speech from their platforms. Some people, such as former US President Donald Trump, have accused Google of censoring conservative speech. However, social media companies argue that they are simply upholding their terms of service agreements and that they have a responsibility to protect their users from harmful content.
Social media companies have also moved away from their free speech inclinations for other reasons, such as pressure from European governments and advertisers. The European Union has been particularly active in regulating social media companies, and it has passed a number of laws that require them to remove harmful content and protect user privacy.
The European Union's positions on these issues have a lot of influence over how social media companies operate, as millions of social media users are in Europe.
Because social media companies are global, there is a fear that they will censor content to comply with the laws of the strictest countries, which often lack free speech protections. This could have a chilling effect on free speech in countries that are less restrictive.
If social media companies adopt global content moderation policies instead of country-specific policies, the most authoritarian countries will effectively set the rules for everyone. This would be a major blow to free speech. It is not a good idea to give self-interested companies this kind of power. They are motivated by profit, and authoritarian countries like China have the money to influence their decisions about free speech. One way to address this problem is to hold social media giants like Facebook and Google accountable for censoring content on their platforms. This could be done through legislation or regulation.
In an ideal world, the government would not police the internet at all. This would be a dangerous step away from individual freedom. Instead, social media companies should be responsible for policing and removing hate speech, threats, and other illegal content. However, they must not cross the line into discriminating against political speech based on viewpoint. To keep this power in check, the public should demand more transparency from companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube about how they police their platforms, as this has a direct impact on our daily expression. One possibility is for governments to establish a system to handle online censorship issues and complaints, but this should be the furthest extent of government involvement.
Bibliography
Yaraghi, Niam. 21 September 2018, Regulating free speech on social media is dangerous and futile, retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2018/09/21/regulating-free-speech-on-social-media-is-dangerous-and-futile/
Hudson Jr, David L. 1 April 2019, Free speech or censorship? Social media litigation is a hot legal battleground, retrieved from https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/social-clashes-digital-free-speech
Comments