“Social Media Keyboard” by Shahid Abdullah is marked with CC0 1.0.
The discourse on who takes responsibility to dictate what belongs on the internet is an ongoing dilemma that involves political and cultural decisions, by once delving into the history of free speech and the beginning of the internet it can then be addressed that it’s the tech giants that should be censoring the internet’s content.
Why now are we moderating social media?
The blunt reason bullying, harassment, violent content, hate and porn is so problematic online is these topics online lead to cyberbullying, toxic behaviours and in some circumstances critical physical harm to oneself or others (Australian Human Rights Commission). With young children aged 14-17, 91% of them spend time online every week, they’re exposed to such content that 44% of those children report negative online experiences (Australian Human Rights Commission) (Australian Government: safety commissioner, 2021). The statistics have shown that such negativity can have a real detrimental impact on people, particularly young adults, leading to increased stress, anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem (Australian Government: safety commissioner, 2021). With such hate spreading online, the debacle of who censors this behaviour is in question. To truly address such a question, we must trace back to the origins of the internet and free speech to finally label and hold accountable for the horror circulating the internet. Below is a video that addresses how dominant social media is in a young adult’s life and how influential all content online can be on one person.
TEDx talks. (2020). Impact of social media on youth| Katanu Mbevi| TEDx Youth @ Brookehouseschool. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soHn6t_jjIw&t=128s
What has free speech got to do with content censorship?
Today in a world where free speech is more important than ever is also more dangerous than ever. Countries such as America and France have the right to free speech ingrained in their historical constitution that have paved the way for their citizens lives. Summarised, their constitutions agree that no law or establishment may take one’s speech away, however, the words “peaceful” (Gillespie, T. 2018) and “such abuses of this freedom” (Declarations of the rights of man and the citizen, 1789) address that abuse to this right will be dealt by the law. This leaves it up to the debate whether who shall deal with the violent words surrounding the internet when in a constitute it says the law should. Ironically, this can be seen as tyrannical when the government steps in and irrelevant when the technology companies do.
The principles of freedom of speech protect the individual from tyranny as well as their right to be wrong, while beneficial, particularly to minorities, the constant circulation of harmful content grows as the internet does each day. The government could further be seen as hypocritical by implementing such laws to protect one’s freedom to speech then promoting capitalism in the early 20th century around the time the internet was created. These capitalist ideas promoted ‘the burgois public sphere’ of coffee house and debating societies that became the modern press of the time (Gillespie, T. 2018). In a modern period where the internet leaves a footprint, hateful messages are more detrimental and spread like wildfire.
“Free Speech” by Fresh Conservative is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.
Establishing the importance of knowing the laws protecting one’s freedom of speech is crucial in understanding the changes of the political and economic factors of speech. As the media grows, large corporations such as Facebook, own most media companies such as Instagram, controlling their advertisements, data, and algorithms (Massanari. 2017). This large increase of corporations owning media companies, allows the debate to extend whether they should be responsible for the content circulating their platforms. After all, without them the hateful content such as porn and cyberbullying couldn’t exist.
Was the internet meant to be this accessible to everyone?
‘A free media is vital to holding the powerful to account’ (Gillespie, T. 2018). As the internet has progressed consumers have too, from speculators to contributors to the content that is on the media, establishments such as Indymedia in 1999 promoted the movement of being the media, rather than pushing away an un-conservative idea such as the internet (Roberts, S. 2019). The media was always intended to be used by everyone, that it comes to no shock that people’s negativity have repercussions, but it’s in question how these tech giants allow such negative content. Howard Rheingold, the author of ‘The Virtual Community’ quoted that “The technology that makes virtual communities possible has the potential to bring enormous leverage to ordinary citizens” (Rheingold, 2000), insisting along with other authors, John Perry Barlow and Mike Godwin, that the opportunity that these technology companies have given people while liberating, also lack conformities and rules. The internet was set for expression and liberation that these environmental factors that started the internet are inherent in today’s internet, that it can only be the corporation’s responsibility to reset their values that they intended their platforms to be, as they have been blinded by their own creation (Rheingold, 2000).
Are we moderating content online already?
Moderation is an act taken upon social media platforms to moderate the content people see and take down what breaches their values. The fascinating point of who moderates and censors the hateful content on the online world overarchingly comes from the government. This can be seen in the terms and conditions on what and why they take content down, as Gillespie (2018, P.5) states the social media platforms are “setters of norms, interpreters of law”. Media platforms taken responsibility of majority of the web they have a custodianship to know when to intervene and how (Gillespie, T. 2018).
“3D Scales of Justice” by ccPixs.com is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Trump sues tech giants over alleged ‘Censorship’
Facebook has displayed that they “should not be the arbiters of truth” on the internet according to Mark Zuckerberg (SBS News, 2020). This has been proven in a case where Donald Trump filed a class action lawsuit against Twitter, Google and Facebook. Trump was banned from his social media platforms in January for public safety concerns for waking the Capital riot, which was led by his supporters (Clayton, J. 2021). This has proven the power of speech expressed online can cause such a movement of hate and violence. While Trump sarcastically appoints this lawsuit as “a beautiful development for our freedom of speech” (Clayton, J. 2021), critics have criticised this lawsuit and believe he is unlikely to succeed, due to private companies having the right to decide who uses their platform. Ultimately from this case, we can take the responsibility and protection the tech companies have over their platform as a private company, even over the government. Despite the companies wanting nothing to do with this responsibility, as it’s assumed it would impact the profitability of their platform.
Moderation as a practice sits between legal requirements and guidelines for use of the platform and the user’s initiative to build a virtual reality (Understanding Commercial Content Moderation. 2019). Each platform has their own limit to moderation, for example, Reddit has more of a ‘free’ platform compared to Facebook, making consistency within the internet guidelines difficult (Massanari. 2017). Commercial content moderation is the rising form of censorship where the users get to decide what’s harmful and flag it with the platforms (Understanding Commercial Content Moderation. 2019). The overarching issues with content moderation is the inconsistency between platforms on the internet that each platform have their own value of violent and distasteful content.
who is responsible for online content censorship?
The back in forth between government and technology corporations taking responsibility is a never-ending debate. However, the reality that will never settle to some, is that the tech corporations must take responsibility on what circulates their platforms as at the end of the day, as displayed in the history of the internet and a large theme throughout this article, is taking responsibility. These social media platforms have a responsibility for what they created, what circulates their platform, that it’s only fair they censor and scrutinise the hateful content that it’s on their platforms.
Reference list:
Roberts, S. (2019) Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of social media (pp. 33-72). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gillespie, T. (2018) All Platforms Moderate. In Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media (pp. 1-23). Yale University Press.
Understanding Commercial Content Moderation. (2019). In Roberts, Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of social media (pp. 33–72). Yale University Press,. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300245318
Clayton, J. (2021). BBC. Trump sues twitter, google and Facebook alleging ‘censorship’. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57754435
Massanari. (2017). Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815608807
Australian Human Rights Comission. 5 Current issues of ‘internet censorship’: bullying, discrimination, harassment and freedom of expression. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/5-current-issues-internet-censorship-bullying-discrimination-harassment-and-freedom
Australian Government: safety commissioner. (2021). Cyberbullying.https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-issues/cyberbullying
TEDx talks. (2020). Impact of social media on youth| Katanu Mbevi| TEDx Youth @ Brookehouseschool. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soHn6t_jjIw&t=128s
Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community, revised edition: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. MIT press.
SBS News. (2020). Mark Zuckerberg clashes with Twitter over decision to fact-check Donald Trump. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/mark-zuckerberg-clashes-with-twitter-over-decision-to-fact-check-donald-trump/w6s9v76k9
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, France, 1789