As social media has gained prominence, so have the debates about what, if anything, administrators should censor. Since these sites are privately owned, they technically get to decide what is permitted. One of the common goals of social media is to express your opinions, and over time, these sites have become a platform for the everyday person to share their beliefs. Unfortunately, social media officials have started attacking this platform.
The problem with these sites censoring posts is that politics and personal opinions get in the way. What qualifies as offensive varies from person to person, and the algorithm or guidelines a site has in place might lean more Republican or Democratic, which would affect what gets censored.
For instance, the Facebook page of two Republicans, Diamond and Silk, was recently blocked. They support President Donald Trump and often post their opinions on American policies, particularly biases in media and political tactics.
Lynnette Hardaway, one of the creators of Diamond and Silk, says, “Facebook censored our free speech, and shame on the ones that don't even see that we have been censored! If the shoe was on the other foot and Mark Zuckerberg was a conservative and we were liberals, all fences and all chains would have broke loose.” in a USA Today article.
They emailed Facebook asking why they had been censored, and the email Facebook sent in reply said, “The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community. This decision is final and it is not appealable in any way.”
Even though their account was eventually unblocked, the incident still rekindled the debate on whether politics plays a role in what is and isn’t censored on social media.
It is in these sites’ rights to monitor posts, but what is the point of social media if people can’t use it as a platform to express ideas? Seeing other people’s opinions can be an eye opening experience because all too often, people aren’t willing to listen to what others believe. People should be able to post their thoughts without having to filter themselves based on an arbitrary system of censorship.
By Addison Kolzow
The problem with these sites censoring posts is that politics and personal opinions get in the way. What qualifies as offensive varies from person to person, and the algorithm or guidelines a site has in place might lean more Republican or Democratic, which would affect what gets censored.
For instance, the Facebook page of two Republicans, Diamond and Silk, was recently blocked. They support President Donald Trump and often post their opinions on American policies, particularly biases in media and political tactics.
Lynnette Hardaway, one of the creators of Diamond and Silk, says, “Facebook censored our free speech, and shame on the ones that don't even see that we have been censored! If the shoe was on the other foot and Mark Zuckerberg was a conservative and we were liberals, all fences and all chains would have broke loose.” in a USA Today article.
They emailed Facebook asking why they had been censored, and the email Facebook sent in reply said, “The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community. This decision is final and it is not appealable in any way.”
Even though their account was eventually unblocked, the incident still rekindled the debate on whether politics plays a role in what is and isn’t censored on social media.
It is in these sites’ rights to monitor posts, but what is the point of social media if people can’t use it as a platform to express ideas? Seeing other people’s opinions can be an eye opening experience because all too often, people aren’t willing to listen to what others believe. People should be able to post their thoughts without having to filter themselves based on an arbitrary system of censorship.
By Addison Kolzow