Introduction
Contemporarily, social life is influenced by both online and offline, with the development of the internet and relatively technologies, a new format for social interaction and collective behavior be provided, the internet can create and intensify conflicts (Moule et al., 2017), which implies that the internet is not the utopian world and that any real-life discrimination, violence or injustice will appear on it. Since the anonymity, immediacy, and global nature of the internet, hate actions and speeches have become more easily perpetrated and disseminated through it(Banks, 2010). These actions and statements can unwittingly have bad influences, therefore, reasonable regulation is essential, this essay argues that the spread of bad speeches or content on the internet should be stopped by the combined efforts of three groups, which are users, relevant enterprises, and government.
Users should control themselves and improve the judgment
Social media platforms have become an inaccessible part of life as the most advanced and popular communication tool, which the subject is the users of them. A highly controversial topic is whether the users of social media platforms should possess absolute speech freedom on the internet. The majority of users thought that speech freedom on the internet should not be limited since it is one of the fundamental rights granted by the constitution (Alam et al., 2016). However, there are numerous tragedies that have been caused or indirectly contributed to by the freedom of expression on the internet, and the victims of these tragedies are often vulnerable in the traditional sense, such as homosexuals, disabled people, black people, females, teenagers, etc. A horrifying story is the case of Amanda Todd, a fifteen years old girl who committed suicide after she was harassed by a stranger on social media, this stranger coaxed this young girl to send a nude and threatened her with this photo, when the girl refused the unreasonable request of this stranger, he chose to make the photo public on the internet, which causes a seriously cyberbullying to this girl. Actually, according to the survey which is provided by Pew, it can be found that approximately 41% of US adults have experienced different forms of harassment (Auxier & Anderson 2021), which implies that the tragedy of Amanda Todd appears in plenty of other users.
Although social media users have the privilege of freedom of speech, ethical boundaries should be abided by when speaking. As a matter of fact, the speech of a person has a significant relationship with the education level received, less educated internet users are more probably to read hate speech and give feedback on it (Erjavec, 2014). Users should improve their own quality under the premise of controlling their own speech and making better judgments about what is on the internet.
The regulation of Government and balance
Social media platforms have provided more opportunities for self-expression, and the content being released sometimes can generate global heat, however, some illegal speech can also take advantage of the nature of the internet as well, which can cause problems for the government. For example, some unscrupulous people may use anonymity to commit fraud on the internet or to promote statements about the democracy of the country which can threaten the safety of the user and society. Therefore, the government is already attempting to find a variety of methods to improve this phenomenon, a common approach is to enact relevant laws to restrict internet companies and urge them to control illegal speech on the internet. There are also countries that directly control the origin of speech through laws, which are the users themselves, and if users make inappropriate statements on the internet and cause certain consequences, a different level of punishment will be imposed. However, currently, there is another method that is more efficient, the internet has given the tools into the hands of both citizens and the government, the government can manage and control online activity through the way of influencing internet architecture, code, and algorithms has become the most effective monitoring tool in the digital age (Sivetc, 2019). The ability to publish speech online is dependent on the internet infrastructure, which implies that if the internet infrastructure can be controlled, online free expression will also be limited.
However, the government should keep the balance of speech freedom and regulation, over-regulation is undesirable as well. Some countries may go for restrictions on certain topics due to political security concerns, however, sometimes such restrictions are too strict. For instance, in China, some topics are strictly forbidden to be discussed, and if relevant statements appear on social media, there is a high probability that they will be blocked with great speed, even though sometimes these discussions are reasonable and peaceful. And occasionally serious social events are not allowed to be discussed excessively, probably out of concern for social opinion. Still, people should have the right to speak on such matters, not just prevent people from expressing their views on the internet. Like the epidemic lockdown in Shanghai China this year, some residents take advantage of social media platforms to share their real situations of themselves, but since such content may cause controversy and anger, some posts that are realistic but too tragic in their presentation are deleted. The officials prefer to display the positive side of the epidemic blockade to the general public, even though such an approach is obviously partial. However, occasionally, such actions will not only not reduce public opinion, but even cause more public discontent and questions.
The principles that Internet companies should follow
The last perspective is analyzed from the standpoint of internet companies, due to the novelty of the internet industry, the regulatory system for this industry is imperfect and lacking, and these companies are almost free to pursue any monetization avenue on the internet. However, as the problem continues to grow, the internet companies and departments involved can not ignore it (Ghosh, 2020). In many countries, the government has enacted many policies and regulations to restrict internet companies and requires them to promptly remove speech that may cause adverse effects. Internet companies usually increase the number of human reviewers and improve artificial intelligence to detect user posting, which is probably the most effective method currently. Actually, when some topics become popular, the increase in the number of views on the topic in a way also brings benefits to the internet companies, so internet companies should never forget to comply with the bottom line, to protect the interests of society, and then make profits.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the general environment of the internet world should be maintained by three parties, the government should reasonably enact laws to regulate but control the balance and not overly regulate, and give users the obligation to reasonably make a speech on the internet, the company should cooperate with the government and better improve the algorithm to do the more efficient review, and focus on the interests of society in addition to the interests of the company and the private sector. As a user and enjoyer of social media services, always remember that the internet is not a place outside the law, although as a user should have the authority to freedom of speech, but should always maintain a rational speech, meanwhile, when browsing on the internet, the users should objectively distinguish and have own judgment. As an emerging industry, the internet still needs more constraints and improvements, which requires the joint efforts of many parties.
References
Alam, I., Raina, R. L., & Siddiqui, F. (2016). Free vs hate speech on social media: the Indian perspective. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 14(4), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/jices-06-2015-0016
Auxier, B., & Anderson, M. (2021, April 7). Social media use in 2021. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/
Banks, J. (2010). Regulating hate speech online. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 24(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2010.522323
Erjavec. (2014). Readers of online news comments: why do they read hate speech comments. In ANNALES Histoire, Sciences Sociales (Vol. 24, Issue 3, pp. 451–462).
Ghosh, D. (2020). It’s All in the Business Model: The Internet’s Economic Logic and the Instigation of Disinformation, Hate, and Discrimination. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 21(1), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1353/gia.2020.0012
Moule, R. K., Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2016). Technology and conflict: Group processes and collective violence in the Internet era. Crime, Law and Social Change, 68(1-2), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-016-9661-3
Sivetc, L. (2018). State regulation of online speech in Russia: the role of internet infrastructure owners. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 27(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay016