Free speech applies everywhere, with slashes and cuts that razor opponents and users. This double-edged nature leads to dual considerations in every sector, which would take more than a little work to evaluate. So, due to limited time and attention span, I will focus on the private internet/social media sector today.
- Protecting free expression in the social media sphere entails facets of security, privacy, and the responsibility to enforce standards of practice. These standards are the ways in which we create and continue communication on the internet, the definitive third place. These companies are put in the unenviable position where they must perform both manners, Doing checks and removing all content vaguely deemed unacceptable while not acting in censorship on anything at the same time. A titan must look upon the users and ponder whether intervening is morally conscripted or reprehensible; Facebook, by sheer volume and early adopter status, is the monolith of scrutinized platforms.
- One says that the platform (Facebook) is more than a private company; Nay, the social portion of the media functions operative, that this is the public square. If so, how does the responsibility for what occurs on this platform fall upon Mark Zuckerberg? If this is a public place, then the platforms must allow people to speak. The problem with this, inherently, is the global status of these lands. The milk crate stands on a bridge to countries that outlaw milk. There is a line that must be ridden between laws of speech for one country and another. What happens when the user of one account is banned, but their legislation prohibits such actions from being taken, finding the company in the middle of a battle between contrasting rights from equally stark countries?
- A piece to watch out for from the end of social media (and private internet) companies are overreaching. They must stand within the law, holding steady as a neutral party if they are to be a public square. This can prove challenging for politically involved parties and those with narrow intentions, such as Elon Musk’s annexing of the @America username in furtherance of the Donald Trump presidential campaign. His efforts have recently involved taking the former Alex Jones Twitter username, @Infowars, after a lawsuit from the Sandy Hook victims’ families and subsequent liquidation of his (Jones’) company.
- The problem with this retention is his claim that accounts on “X” all belong to him. There is no question or doubt that he must be the publisher and main export of dubious claims, harmful abusive content, and misinformation (though we already knew this). If he really does have “superior ownership” over all the accounts on his platform, then he ought to be held to accord for the willing disregard of copyright infringement, unethical-illegal materials, and libel his accounts have propagated. This in-person approach to moderation of free expression and regulation is a difficult path to take; it is uncharted waters when one claims things on a level such as this; The owner is fending with a government body over the necessity (or ability) to turn over control of the account they created.
- I think blind spots are awash in those who do not take the time to do internal research. If an account is not theirs because of where it was created, what portion of the content they created/shared is truly theirs? Therefore, is their spread of revenge porn, CP, or other stains of the soul really on the shoulders of the people simply using Musk’s accounts? The argument would follow that they are his accounts, and he can do anything he wants to them if he sees something he disagrees with. These are all questions that would work well internally, preferably taking place before the challenge of court decisions.
Leave a Reply