If you haven’t heard at least one of the following terms in the past year, you must be living under a rock: censorship, free speech, hate speech, fake news, misinformation and disinformation. As social media establishes it roots in the fabric of society, it opens, on the one hand, new opportunities for connection and collaboration worldwide and, on the other hand, a host of issues the scale of which society has not faced before. Social media platforms have become the primary fora for information dissemination, discussion and debate. They have enabled the decentralisation of the flow of information within society: Each individual is both a vehicle for and a source of information and content.
Some of the questions that arise (specifically in the past year in relation to Covid and hate speech) are around whether it is right for false or hateful content to exist online, to what extent content qualifies as “false” or “hateful” and whose responsibility is it, if any, to regulate and control the content found online. There have been calls for greater censorship across social media platforms, which have led to a debate around the precarious balance between free speech and censorship. Personally, I am inclined to be suspicious of any one solution to these types of problems; I believe it is important to examine the outcomes possible when “solutions” are taken to the extreme. My intention with this piece is to lay out some of my thoughts in a hope to organise my own argument and (hopefully) bring some food for thought to anyone interested in this debate on internet censorship.
Social media censorship
There are several different definitions of censorship. Some definitions restrict censorship to actions taken specifically by the government to suppress and control information fed to the public. A broader interpretation of censorship includes the “supervision and control of information and ideas that are circulated in society”, without requiring that the censoring body be the government. Given the topic at hand around the actions taken by private companies to flag, limit, or completely remove content or users featured on their platforms, a broader definition of censorship is more appropriate. The question I would like to address is whether social media platforms – tech companies – ought to be censoring the users and content on their platforms?
What are the consequences of social media censorship?
Where censorship was once a “necessary evil” used by governments in wartime to promote and protect national interests, today we see a very different type of censorship taking place. Social media platforms, all privately-owned companies, are able to remove users and filter, remove and flag content deemed inappropriate based on internally-determined standards. On the surface this may not seem too problematic, especially when citing specific cases where hateful or hurtful statements have been made, or when considering the argument that tech companies, as creators and owners, should have a right to control the content of their platforms. However, social media is so pervasive within society that it has replaced and completely out-scaled public gatherings as the primary fora for information dissemination, debate and discussion. Would we want similar censorship of public gatherings? Would it be useful for us as a society and what are the potential adverse effects?
The reality today is that the public spaces in which we share ideas, challenge each other, debate and adopt new and better ways of thinking are controlled by privately-owned companies. Interestingly, these privately-owned companies have all stated missions to provide platforms for free speech. Youtube’s mission statement is “to give everyone a voice and show them the world”. A key tenet of Facebook’s vision is to encourage the sharing of ideas. The censorship of these platforms appears to contradict their very purpose. These profit-motivated tech companies are more concerned with keeping their users on their platforms and increasing their user base. Any censorship policy is likely to be driven by public opinion and, consequently, subjective views of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Furthermore, these private companies may be ill-equipped with the technical knowledge to accurately carry out censorship. The experts who designed censorship policies in relation to Covid, for example, may not have the requisite scientific and medical knowledge to understand the implications or interpretations of pandemic-related research and policy. While the question of whether tech companies can or should censor their content and the question of whether they are equipped to do so are two distinct issues, I would argue that no censorship is better than censorship by an ill-equipped and possibly biased body.
Placing power in the hands of tech companies to censor content requires us to consider the more extreme scenarios that could play out. It is easy to value censorship when the content being censored is that with which you disagree. The implication of subjective censorship is that in the case that public opinion changes, or large investors apply pressure, the type of content censored can change. The implication is that when a mainstream view changes or is taken too far, the voices that balance out the view or outright challenge it may be silenced. There is huge value in having open discussions and for mainstream ideas to be challenged by alternative views. The argument for free speech aside, the value and quality of information improves when it is challenged, rejected or developed. When scientific dialogue is censored, information quality declines. The danger of social media censorship is that it silences voices, right or wrong, that either need to be heard or need to be challenged.
Another aspect to consider is what kind of incentives censorship may give rise to and whether these are desirable. When a user is banned, or a piece of their content blocked, the incentive grows for those with non-mainstream views to seek or create new platforms or fora for discussion where their views will be heard. As David Fuller describes, “it creates ecosystems of information that never meet”. We are incorrect in assuming that censorship itself is a mechanism of challenging information or views. Instead, censorship may have the opposite effect: amplifying voices and views on platforms which never intersect, allowing these voices to remain unchallenged and creating an “us versus them” dichotomy.
We all live together in a physical space, so why should we encourage separation in a digital space?
Alexander Blum, 2019
The question of social media censorship in relation to hate speech is a delicate one, especially since the internet can be a breeding ground for harmful and hurtful comments. The one issue with hate speech is the lack of a clear definition and the fact that it exists on a spectrum: on one end is the speech very clearly intended to harm people by inciting violence, and on the other end is speech that is offensive. The type of hate speech that incites violence is not protected “free speech” in countries like South Africa, nor in the United States. It is the area of “offensive” speech that is more unclear.
An argument against the censorship of hate speech that is offensive (or any hate speech not clearly inciting violence) is that hate speech should be fought with free speech, not censorship; there is value in counter-speech. Freedom of speech allows for that which is offensive. It begs the question: are we becoming too sensitive a society that we are so intolerant of offensive speech? Whether speech is offensive or not is also dependent on the context, the parties involved, the intention and the subjective interpretation of the “offensive” act. Conversely, the online public space – the “marketplace of ideas” – is not a level playing field and one cannot disregard the inherent inequality of society which puts minority groups at greater risk of experiencing harm, both offline and online. This once again brings to light the question of whether tech companies are equipped to handle such complexities.
Furthermore, as Joshua Franco argues, censorship is not the only mechanism to challenge prejudicial and discriminatory beliefs and may serve to “mask the problem of intolerance and discrimination that it reflects and which we must urgently and meaningfully address”. If censorship only serves to feed the above-mentioned “ecosystems of information that never meet”, then it is not doing much in the way of protecting potential victims of prejudice and discrimination. That being said, the lack of censorship of social media does not imply a ‘free for all’. Freedom of speech is a relative right that has consequences. As Nesrine Malik argues, “A moral right to express unpopular opinions is not a moral right to express those opinions in a way that silences the voices of others, or puts them in danger of violence.”
Proceed with caution
So where to from here? It is clear that censorship is a highly contentious topic fraught with complexities. Our public fora for debate – now found online – are essential to the progression of society as ideas and perspectives are discussed, challenged, rejected and developed. This balance between keeping our online public fora open and reducing any harm caused by the increased connectedness of our society is essential to the proper exercise of free speech. Whether we should be placing the power to distil and interpret these complexities and manage the outcomes in the hands of self-interested tech companies is not a question to be taken lightly.
