From the conception of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech has been a pillar of democracy in the United States. The rise of social media as a source of news information has brought to light the impact of misinformation and false reporting. Big tech companies and social media outlets have taken matters into their own hands, but it is unclear if their censorship of potential false claims is actually helping to protect the integrity of information consumption in America.
2020 Election
The role of big tech companies in the everyday lives of Americans has not gone unnoticed over the years, but the 2020 election cycle has caused these companies to take some heat from both citizens and the President Trump’s administration. Twitter first came under fire when the entire platform suppressed the New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings in Ukraine. Twitter was accused of aligning with the Democratic party and their censorship of the story was seen as an effort to protect the Biden campaign from possible backlash the story may have caused. From this point on, there were multiple instances of censorship, including the entire Twitter account of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany. It was quite alarming to many Americans that a presidential cabinet member no longer had the ability to voice her opinions on such a large social media platform. Twitter also began flagging controversial tweets, especially those of President Trump. When it was unclear who was going to win the election, Twitter made it very clear to its users that there were many potentially false claims circulating the app.
While Republicans were most upset by these particular examples, roughly three-quarters of adults in the U.S. believe that political opinions are being censored on social media sites. This means that 75% of people believe that there is some impediment on the freedom of speech and ideas in the United States. There is confidence from both parties that speech is not as free as it should be. The line between big tech companies and the government is becoming blurred as time passes. In one of the most high-stakes elections in American history, people became less free.
The Threat to Democracy
Big tech companies may believe that they are contributing to news intake in a positive manner, but bias censorship is detrimental. It is unreasonable to believe that companies with their own agendas are able to make un-bias decisions about what information is reputable. The increase in censorship came at a time in American politics that was and still is hypersensitive to new information and sensationalized stories. The consumption of the censored information was likely to have an effect on the opinions of voters and it seems that social media outlets wanted to prevent this from occurring. It cannot be left up to big tech companies to decide what stories and information can and cannot be consumed.
Blocking potentially crucial information prohibited citizens from having access to important information surrounding presidential candidates and social media should not have this type of influence on American politics. Free elections depend on citizens having the opportunity to formulate their own opinions based on all information. When censorship occurs, people are forced to formulate opinions that are founded on tailored information. Americans must maintain the right to decide for themselves what is credible and what is not. The freedom of speech extends to internet outlets, even if it is the minority opinion.
Solutions
On May 28, 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order designed to prevent online censorship. This move by the administration was clearly ineffective after observing the events that took place during the November election. In order to maintain the standard of freedom and democracy in the United States, Americans must take responsibility for the information they engage with. It is more crucial than ever for people to consider multiple sources and to look beyond social media for information. It is dangerous to allow big companies or any other entity to dictate political discourse and Americans run the risk of becoming puppets of the powerful if actions are not taken. In the age of technology this will continue to be a pressing issue and it is up to the people to ensure that freedom of expression continues to have a place in the United States.
The fact that social media companies can remove the content of someone for any reason they put in their rules just for having an opinion scares me to the core. Today I see a lot of conservative groups afraid to say their political beliefs, especially on mainstream social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. I do not like how social media sites have taken a much aggressive anti-fake news campaign that directly suppressive the right, but it does barely a thing about the fake news spreading around the left. While companies have the right to do anything in their platform since they are not a federal government. Online Media and the Internet has gotten so big that it has become a utility for most Americans. Suppression of information has left less competition on a few biased media sites that part of the country do not trust. Fake news has taken a huge role in people’s lives due to the lack of trust of authenticity from real articles because most of what fake news does is to give a confirmation bias to persons’ strongly held beliefs without thinking about the nuances. This is a tricky thing for a state to do. How do they balance out the fake news with real news? By censoring fake news would be detrimental to a Democracy that promotes a free form of information to anybody. Stealth authoritarianism from both sides crept into US politics and indirectly have hurt the institutions of democracy. From the Right attacking news journalist critical to them as fake news and enemies to the people. And the Left using social media as a tool to block information that is critical to them. What constitutes fake news. And is bias news now fake news? These are things that the state should find a solution to.
Hi Avery! I thought this was a really interesting post. I agree with you that ideally it should not be left to tech companies to decide what information or news should people consume. However, I also think that we cannot rely on the traditional idea of what free speech is to judge the choices of these tech companies given that the spread of fake news through social media is a relatively new phenomenon. I’ve read a research paper that found that the spread of false news affected the election results of the 2016 election. I feel like it would help make your argument even stronger if you address this in your post and explain why it is still wrong for tech companies to censor/flag certain posts.
I have always found it odd that social media platforms can literally choose who or what they want to show to their users. Sure, I totally understand, it is their app, their company, and their technology etc., so they would demand some kind of autonomy in how they run and do business. However, we, the people who use the apps, should also have some say in this situation. For all intents and purposes their apps are founded on people using them all the time, constantly speaking and sharing data. On the internet especially, there is a degree of anonymity, so people are ever *more* likely to voice ALL their extreme opinions without fear. However, what would happen if the tech juggernauts decide to one day suppress all the information regarding any random event. Who would we tell? How long would it take us to notice? Why would they do this? All of these are very valid questions, that at this moment I do not have a clue what the answer is. Sure, the claims of fake news are both real and rampant, and their efforts to reduce it is spread are clear. But, when does the line between flagging fake news and blatantly disregarding and suppressing information become one and the same? We are already on a slippery slope. I like that tech companies are going out of their way to reduce the amount of fake news on their apps, but it also scares me because they have the ability to remove any information that they don’t want to be known at a moment’s notice. An extreme example of this concept is, “What if Superman were real?” Sure he’s doing the right thing most of the time, however doesn’t it frighten you thinking about what he could do? What if he wanted to do something wild based solely on a whim, what would we do? Conversely, if Twitter wanted to close a ton of accounts, what would we do? I don’t know and that does scare me a bit.
As an American, and supporter of democracy, I can state with confidence that I am in favor of free speech. However, I am not in favor of unregulated, uncensored, consistent flow of misinformation and disinformation that we have witnessed on a multitude of social media apps including Twitter. The American electorate has relied increasingly more on social media for the distribution of vital information pertaining to candidates and their respective party platforms. Because of this, it is essential that this information is regulated and even censored. I am of this opinion, because the vast majority of Americans do not have either the time or will to discern what is “fake news” and real, or they are simply uneducated on how to do so. To your point about the menacing power of social media companies to influence and regulate free speech, I believe debate should exist as to the extent to which this responsibility should rest with corporations. How much influence should the federal government have on the censorship of information? Is there balance that must be struck between the two? Historically, in regards to hate speech (a form of free speech that has been limited), it has been the United States government that has intervened. Though, U.S. government involvement in information regulation is a slippery slope towards state media, and even if that is an extreme notion, any governmental involvement in censorship on platforms would undoubtedly become partisan in this current political climate. For as long as “fake news” proliferates on these platforms, I believe that we can expect several legal injunctions alleging suppression of free speech in future.
While I agree that it would be dangerous to allow independent 3rd parties like the tech companies to determine what speech is censored and not, I disagree with your assessment that all information should be made available regardless of its validity. For instance the recent Trump tweets about the validity of the election were flagged on twitter as being potentially misleading. For one, if Twitter had deleted his tweets then that could be considered censorship; however, simply labeling it with a warning is a fair compromise. Secondly, election officials and even (former) members of Trump’s cabinet have said that the result of the election were valid, and Trump is false. I would argue that the media has been doing its job of protecting democracy by warning the American people of dangerous rhetoric that has been shown to be false and threatens to delegitimize a legitimate election.
Hi Avery! I really liked getting to read your blog post and you brought up a ton of good points. The idea behind censorship is incredibly interesting. The Constitution was not designed in a way that took social media and the internet into account. Online security threats and cyber attacks are becoming more common, but working to combat these issues leaves free speech and freedom of press in the dust. According to Pew Research, 90% of Republicans think that social media is likely to censor political viewpoints- which is even higher than 75%. However, your data takes into account all voters’ opinions whereas Pew Research was only looking at Republicans. I completely agree that this is a very high percentage and shows that well over half of social media users believe there is some sort of censorship occurring. One thing these data points show is that there seems to be a perceived censorship bias in social media. If 75% of all users think there is censorship occurring, but 90% of Republicans believe this is the case, it shows that it is possible Republicans are being targeted more than Democrats.
Misinformation is a really complicated problem to try and find a solution for. It is really difficult to convince someone who genuinely believes in the reliability of their favorite news sources that it is in fact false information. Trump’s Executive Order is working to combat censorship which ultimately acts in favor of supporting freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but it does not do anything to prevent misinformation- which is also a large threat to our democracy. I loved your conclusion- I truly believe as technology develops, this topic will become much more pressing. As the world becomes more connected than ever, misinformation, censorship and online safety will become much more difficult to come up with a solution for.
While the censorship of various individuals by large tech corporations can be frustrating, I am not sure I would consider such censorship to be on the same level as authoritarianism. Unlike many European states, the US does not have legal penalties for hate speech for the most part. Nobody can remove your right to say anything with your own mouth or write your ideas on paper. Just because the de facto method of discourse is Twitter and Facebook doesn’t mean that these corporations must match their terms of service to the first amendment. I would argue that their responsibility to protect their image to shareholders obligate them to ensure their sites are not being used as part of GRU covert influence campaigns or dangerous fake news like the Pizzagate conspiracy theory or support white supremacists. In the event that people are banned without violating terms of service, of course, one should have the right to appeal the decision, but fundamentally these are private corporations and if their terms of service are unappealing, one can go to Parler instead. As Parler has become a rampant hotbed of QAnon conspiracies, pornography, and wildly unsubstantiated claims, I would argue that terms of service built on fact-checking is a public good. Fundamentally, no rights are being infringed as those who join the sites agree to the terms of service, have myriad alternatives to voice their opinion, and carry no legal punitive weight.
Avery, I appreciate your blog post because I share some of the same concerns and frustrations with censoring on social media these days. It’s interesting how big tech companies have the ability to censor posts and comments from others and it not be seen as a threat to our first amendment rights. I think it especially was towards people of the republican party because the CEOs and other leadership of these companies are against the republican ideology. I agree with President Trump’s executive order because it tries to fight for our first amendment rights and stands up against these major tech companies. If one person can post something and then another be censored, where can the line be drawn?
This is similar to what is going on in the Philippines. Back in 2012, there was an act passed that incriminated someone if they spoke against the government an any way. What started as a way to combat child pornography, illegal online activity, and cyber attacks, turned into attacks on Filipino’s free speech rights. Lots of students are trying to speak out against the current administration, and many reporters have been arrested for speaking out against the government and its officials. To me, this situation is what the future of America could look like if the attacks on our freedom of speech go unaddressed. It reminds me of the Sedition Act of 1798. People in America could be deported, fined, or imprisoned if false, scandalous, or malicious writing was published about the United States. It’s interesting to see how a country can slowly be stripped of their democratic rights when political gains are at play. It will be interesting to see how social media is censored going forward for the runoff for the Senate and for Presidential elections in the future. What do you think will happen?
I think you raise some excellent points in this post! As I began reading your post, my initial thoughts were, “Is it really a threat to democracy if someone or something other than the government is limiting a certain freedom?” As I continued to read on, I realized that yes, it is still a threat to democracy even if the government is not the one that is limiting the freedoms.
One question I do have (that is somewhat of a counterargument to yours) is to what extent do these big tech companies also need their freedom protected to practice their business by blocking certain tweets, posts, etcetera? For example, you said, “Twitter was accused of aligning with the Democratic party…” Given this statement, and if a company like Twitter is choosing or chose to align with the Democratic party, is the government limiting Twitter’s freedom as a private business by telling Twitter what it can and cannot censor or who it can or cannot align with politically? Furthermore, if we let the government control what a company like Twitter can or cannot censor, will the government also begin to tell other large corporations how to do business? If so, at what point should the government stop controlling businesses? Would it eventually extend into smaller businesses as well? Finally, although you mention President Trump’s executive order as a possible solution there are some individuals (not necessarily I) who believe that executive orders are, to an extent, a threat to the institutional checks and balances our constitution has put in place. I realize that, without there being some government control over these big tech companies, the threat to democracy would be even greater than what it is now; however, these were all thoughts and questions I had while I was reading your post.
I enjoyed reading your post! Great work!
Hi Avery! I thought this was a very topical and thought provoking piece. Social media (and its increasing involvement in our lives) has become a major influence and controversy in politics. The concept of censorship and fake news is a really interesting insight into the way our 21st century Western world operates. While I of course am a proponent of free speech and question Big Tech industries’ ability to determine what is false or not, I agree with other commenters that the average reader is unlikely to take the time to read from several news outlets and discern what is or is not falsified. I think that fake news should continue to be flagged, though I would be curious if there are solutions to who determines whether or not to do that and if there is a nonbiased, professional method that can be taken. This discussion reminds me of the way in which Instagram and quick-share posts dominated the election over the last few months. My feed was filled with posts and shares by friends of mine with like-minded opinions, so it felt like an incredibly insular group-think bubble. Hearing opposing opinions felt ridiculous to me because in my mind, everyone thought the way I did and agreed with my politics. While this isn’t fake news, a lot of people see the short headlines shared on their friends’ Instagram stories and believe every word that is said without reading up on the context or background. I think this is another factor in the power that social media has–while we can learn and become educated on matters very quickly, our thoughts can be influenced or confirmed very quickly as well. I think overall people should take a more serious approach regarding their digestion of both the news/”fake news” (and its censorship) as well as social media and the sharing of politically oversimplified headlines/memes/etc.
Avery, I think you have raised some very interesting points throughout your piece. You, in my opinion, hit the nail on the head when you discuss this impact a perceived ‘freedom of speech’ breach has on our confidence in democracy. I would, however, definitely say that in many cases, this breach is only perceived – not actual. Republicans are the vast majority of those who believe these freedoms are breached. And, when the Constitution is examined in context, there is simply no way the Founding Fathers could have expected the influx of media and advancements in technology that are present today.
I would be curious to hear your expanded solution to this phenomenon. It seems like there might be one of two routes: Private Businesses and Corporations can continue to serve as independent arbiters – swayed or otherwise – with the consequence of weaning faith in the democracy, or the cease to serve in this role – with the consequence of big-money interest having more and more influence. I certainly believe that there is a difference between freedom of expression/speech… and freedom from accountability/criticism. How might we be able to find this middle ground, while at the same time cherishing our Democracy? Thank you for bring this topic to light in your paper.
Hey Avery, I completely agree with you on the major roles the big tech companies especially social media, had to play in the US 2020 election. I would also like to say in addition to Twitter as you mentioned, Tiktok was a key player in the US 2020 election. On this app, there was a political ad ban however, the political campaigners were still able to get their messages passed across in different ways. An example is a group called the Republican Girls, where young conservative women of like minds can find friends as well as spread their message. These campaigners were able to use relatable means to get across to the audience on TikTok by using the sense of comedy, using more recent ‘slangs’ and many other means.
I got different opinions about this from other social media apps and realized that majority of the users of these apps think this means campaigners used had a very negative effect, especially because the users of these apps are majorly polarized.
Study shows that changing the minds of one in seven voters could be crucial but expecting the campaigners to give up on using social media as a key platform for their messages is not expected. This election, TikTok went from being a lip-syncing to Korean pop to becoming a campaign tool in the US.
Hi Avery! I have often thought about the increasing role of social media companies on the dispersion of information online. Since the election of Donald Trump I believe social media outlets, especially Twitter have been thrown into a role they were not anticipating having online, which is regulating false information that spreads online. Donald Trump has used this platform — while President of the United States — so spread baseless, unfounded conspiracy theories, and lies surrounding voting in elections. With the amount of power he has, this rhetoric went largely unchecked, until recently. While I agree canonizing Twitter as the sole bearer of fact could be potentially dangerous, it is important to note that they still do allow for disinformation to spread rapidly on their platform. Additionally, the censorship you discuss as it relates to the President, primarily flags his claims as disputed by other sources; people can still see what he has tweeted and form their own opinions and choose to ignore it if they want. Much of his tweets have given incorrect information on voting, which can lead to voter suppression of those who do not understand their rights within the voting process, which is a huge threat to our democracy. Overall, I found your post interesting and raises great points about the threat of private companies carrying the burden of regulating online speech, but think it could stand to address the equal threat of unchecked misinformation spreading online.
Social media has become very prominent in this day and age, so it doesn’t surprise me that companies are censoring posts/information. Even the president was using Twitter to spread news and ideas to voters and citizens. Many people get their news from social media websites or online news networks, so the information people are receiving must be credible. Of course, not everything on the internet is credible but many voters rely on these internet sources and don’t always fact check the information. When false information is spread, especially on the internet, it can be impossible for that information to be taken down. Big tech companies should not be allowed to censor any information to the public as it goes against a citizen’s right to free speech and access to information. On the other hand, the internet has become a platform for voters to voice their opinion, as well as debate opposing party voters.
Hi Avery! Your article on censorship brings forth many important issues regarding the intersection between social media and politics. In an age where social media is increasingly vital to our everyday lives, it’s terrifying to consider the amount of censorship and the articulated content that we are dealing with. Big tech companies have taken a significant role, and failed in the public eye many times, in regulating political opinions posted on social media platforms. False facts, threatening information and opinions, and unregulated content run amuck on platforms such as Facebook, that suffer greatly from misinformation threats. These users are actual voters, and voters are entitled to credible, legitimate information concerning the state of their democracy. When these barriers are crossed, platforms should step in to efficiently and minimally regulate content that poses a threat to a large body of people. Public officials posting incorrect information poses a much larger threat to public safety than it does the to rights of the individual. Platforms can now grant individuals instant access to millions of people, who rely on them for their source of knowledge. When the audience is so expansive, the information that is being distributed must be regulated because of its potential to be dangerous. For example, if a public official were to post misinformation about an election, it could severely undermine democratic institutions in the country.
However, this is a tedious barrier. It remains tricky as to where the line remains between restricting an individual’s freedom of speech and strategically, effectively limiting misinformation so as to avoid a public threat. It requires an insane amount of knowledge and work, and probably also demands some degree of accountability to ensure that there are no abuses of power from either social media companies or the government.