All social media platforms have restrictions surrounding fake news, harassment, and depictions of violence. The punishments for violating these rules range from post removal to account takedowns or bans. These companies walk a fine line of public perception. Too restrictive, and banned individuals cry censorship, permanently tarnishing a platform’s reputation whether accurate or not; too loose, and hate speech goes without consequences, creating a toxic environment for everyone regardless of their beliefs.
I don’t condone the repression of controversial opinions, nor do I believe that all social media companies always act justly when taking down content. For example, creators on YouTube have for years blasted the platform for demonetizing or suppressing indie news outlets, horror/true crime videos, and LGBTQ content. However, these companies can and should reserve the right to take down posts that violate their content guidelines, especially hate speech and knowingly false news stories. In all but the broadest definitions, ‘free speech’ doesn’t protect the person falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre nor the person standing outside encouraging people to set one.
Several recent cases have emphasized the importance of social media keeping a close eye on what users post and making their stance on inappropriate content clear: far-right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones spreading a false story of ‘crisis actors’ at the Parkland shooting, foreign operatives taking to social media to influence American elections, and YouTube’s algorithm letting lewd videos targeted at children reach massive audiences unchecked. Each time, platforms took steps to stop the crises and prevent similar scenarios, but even so, the repercussions were widespread and well-publicized. To believe that this type of speech has no consequences is dangerously naive. ‘Fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ amass into large-scale misinformation campaigns, while violence and harassment speak for themselves. Social media outlets must retain their rights to take down inappropriate content to combat this abuse of the Internet’s potential as an outlet for free speech. Conflating this genuine effort to maintain a safe forum for expression with censorship is not only misleading but to a degree unsafe.
By Abby Adams-Smith
I don’t condone the repression of controversial opinions, nor do I believe that all social media companies always act justly when taking down content. For example, creators on YouTube have for years blasted the platform for demonetizing or suppressing indie news outlets, horror/true crime videos, and LGBTQ content. However, these companies can and should reserve the right to take down posts that violate their content guidelines, especially hate speech and knowingly false news stories. In all but the broadest definitions, ‘free speech’ doesn’t protect the person falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre nor the person standing outside encouraging people to set one.
Several recent cases have emphasized the importance of social media keeping a close eye on what users post and making their stance on inappropriate content clear: far-right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones spreading a false story of ‘crisis actors’ at the Parkland shooting, foreign operatives taking to social media to influence American elections, and YouTube’s algorithm letting lewd videos targeted at children reach massive audiences unchecked. Each time, platforms took steps to stop the crises and prevent similar scenarios, but even so, the repercussions were widespread and well-publicized. To believe that this type of speech has no consequences is dangerously naive. ‘Fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ amass into large-scale misinformation campaigns, while violence and harassment speak for themselves. Social media outlets must retain their rights to take down inappropriate content to combat this abuse of the Internet’s potential as an outlet for free speech. Conflating this genuine effort to maintain a safe forum for expression with censorship is not only misleading but to a degree unsafe.
By Abby Adams-Smith