Morne Patterson - Why Big Tech Censorship Threatens Free Speech in America

 

The influence of big tech companies on public discourse has become an increasing concern in recent years. Total social media platforms like Facebook and Google have unprecedented power over the information people consume and share. This has led to growing worries about big tech censorship and its potential threat to free speech in the US.

Lets look into several key aspects of the issue including big tech's role in shaping online discussions, explore specific cases of alleged conservative censorship on social platforms, and consider the legal and ethical questions surrounding content moderation practices.

 

The Rise of Big Tech's Influence on Public Discourse

The influence of big tech companies on public discourse has grown significantly in recent years. Social media platforms like Facebook and Google have become the principal sources for accessing current events and shaping opinions. These platforms use sophisticated algorithms to deliver vast amounts of data to users, creating both opportunities and challenges for public discourse.

 

Social media's role in shaping opinions

Social media has a profound impact on how people form and express their views. These platforms enable users to consume and produce content, transforming them from passive consumers to active participants in shaping public opinion. However, this increased interactivity has also led to concerns about the spread of misinformation and the need for content moderation.

 

Algorithms and content moderation

To manage the unprecedented volume of user-generated content, big tech companies have implemented automated content moderation systems. These tools employ artificial intelligence to detect and remove content deemed harmful or undesirable. However, the effectiveness of these systems is limited by their inability to fully comprehend context and nuance in human speech.

 

Political biases in Silicon Valley

The political leanings of Silicon Valley have come under scrutiny. Studies have shown that tech entrepreneurs tend to be very liberal on most issues, favouring economic policies that redistribute wealth and supporting progressive social causes. However, they also exhibit a strong aversion to government regulation of business. This unique mix of views has the potential to shape the policies and practises of big tech companies, influencing the content and discussions on their platforms.

 

Instances of Conservative Censorship on Social Platforms

High-profile bans and suspensions

Several prominent conservative figures have faced suspensions or permanent bans on major social media platforms. Notable cases include MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, former national security advisor Michael Flynn, and media personality Candace Owens. These actions were often taken for alleged violations of platform policies regarding election or COVID-19 misinformation, or for what the platforms deemed as hateful conduct.

Perhaps the most high-profile case involved former President Donald Trump, who was banned from Facebook, Twitter (now X), and YouTube in January 2021. The platforms cited violations of their policies on inciting violence as the reason for the bans. These actions sparked intense debate about the power of social media companies to censor elected political leaders.

 

Content removal and demonetisation

Conservatives have also raised concerns about the removal of specific content and demonetisation of their accounts. A notable example is the suppression of the New York Post's story about Hunter Biden's laptop in October 2020. Twitter initially prevented users from sharing the article, citing concerns about hacked materials. This decision was later reversed, but it fueled allegations of bias against conservative news outlets.

 

Shadowbanning allegations

Many conservatives have accused social media platforms of "shadowbanning" their content, a practise where a user's posts are made less visible without their knowledge. While platforms have denied engaging in politically motivated shadowbanning, the perception persists among some conservative users that their reach is being artificially limited.

These instances have led to calls for greater transparency from social media companies and have sparked debates about the role of big tech in shaping public discourse.

 

Legal and Ethical Implications of Big Tech Censorship

First Amendment considerations

The First Amendment in the US protects free speech from government interference, but its application to big tech censorship remains a complex issue. Social media platforms, being private entities, are not directly bound by the First Amendment. However, their significant influence on public discourse has led to debates about whether they should be considered modern public squares. The Supreme Court has described social media as "the modern public square," raising questions about the extent to which these platforms can regulate speech without infringing on constitutional rights.

 

Section 230 protections

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US has been a cornerstone of internet regulation, shielding online platforms from liability for user-generated content. This protection has allowed social media giants like Facebook and Google to grow without fear of legal repercussions for third-party posts. However, recent debates have emerged about whether Section 230 should be modified to hold platforms more accountable for content moderation practices, especially in cases of alleged political bias or censorship.

Corporate responsibility vs. government regulation

The balance between corporate autonomy and government oversight in content moderation has become a contentious issue. While platforms argue for their right to set community standards, critics contend that their market dominance necessitates some form of regulation. The debate centres on whether big tech companies should be treated as common carriers, similar to telephone companies, which would limit their ability to discriminate against certain viewpoints. This tension between corporate responsibility and government regulation highlights the need for a nuanced approach to address concerns about big tech censorship while preserving innovation and free expression online.

 

Potential Solutions to Protect Free Speech Online

Platform transparency

To address concerns about big tech censorship, social media platforms can implement greater transparency measures. This involves providing clear information about content moderation practices, including the reasons for removing posts or suspending accounts. By publishing regular transparency reports, platforms like Google and Facebook can detail their efforts in content moderation, data usage, and work environment practices. This openness can help build trust with users and demonstrate accountability in decision-making processes.

 

User empowerment tools

Giving users more control over their online experience can help balance free speech concerns with the need for content moderation. Social media platforms can offer tools that allow users to block or mute specific accounts, keywords, or types of content they find objectionable. This approach empowers individuals to curate their own experience without relying solely on platform-wide censorship. Additionally, platforms can provide options for users to report problematic content, fostering a community-driven approach to moderation.

 

Alternative social media options

The rise of alternative social media platforms presents another solution to concerns about big tech censorship. These platforms often prioritise free speech and minimal content moderation, attracting users who feel censored on mainstream sites. Some alternatives focus on specific niches or interests, while others aim to provide a more open environment for diverse viewpoints. By offering different approaches to content moderation and user privacy, these platforms can provide alternatives for those seeking greater freedom of expression online.

 

Conclusion

The debate surrounding big tech censorship and its impact on free speech in America is far from over. As social media platforms continue to have a significant influence on public discourse, the balance between content moderation and preserving free expression remains a challenge. The instances of alleged conservative censorship, along with the legal and ethical questions raised, highlight the need for ongoing discussion and potential solutions.

To address these concerns, increased transparency from platforms, user empowerment tools, and the growth of alternative social media options offer promising avenues to explore. These approaches could help to safeguard free speech online while also addressing legitimate concerns about harmful content. As technology continues to evolve, it's imnportant for society to keep grappling with these issues to ensure a healthy and open digital public square.

 

FAQs

Why does censorship infringe upon freedom of speech?
Censorship involves exerting pressure on public institutions, such as libraries, to eliminate and restrict access to information deemed inappropriate or harmful, thereby preventing the public from reading or viewing the material and forming their own opinions. Censors attempt to pre-emptively decide on the suitability of materials for everyone.

How severe is censorship in America?
According to Reporters Without Borders, the United States was ranked 55th out of 180 countries in the 2024 Press Freedom Index, indicating concerns about censorship. In the US, certain types of speech like obscenity and defamation are regulated either by governmental bodies or through self-regulation within the industry.

What are some reasons for imposing censorship?
Censorship involves the suppression of speech, public communications, or other information on grounds that it may be objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient. This suppression can be carried out by governments or private institutions.

Should free speech on the internet be protected, and why?
The Supreme Court in the US has upheld that the principles of editorial discretion that protect traditional media formats such as print newspapers should extend at least equally to online platforms. This recognition supports the argument that content curation online deserves protection under the First Amendment, similar to other forms of media.