The Future of Free Speech on Social Media Looks Grim
Social-media platforms have not so much "disrupted" the old media gatekeepers as they have introduced a watered-down version of the same concept.
Nan Palermo/FlickrReddit has suffered a rocky year, having weathered months of censorship concerns and subreddit shutdowns. Recent revelations that co-founder and current CEO Steve Huffman was surreptitiously editing Reddit posts critical of him have thrown the community into still more chaos. But Reddit is far from the only social network struggling with the tension between speech and sensitivity. Similar snafus at other services have been dominating recent headlines: there's "fake news" on Facebook, "hate speech" on Twitter, and the continued scourge of rude comment sections.
Social-media platforms are finding it harder to mouth free speech platitudes (and enjoy the corresponding cultural benefits) while at the same time actively curating a sanitized media feed. Yet to not curate or censor is to be accused of aiding and abetting a parade of horribles ranging from online jihadis to the "alt-right."
The so-called "Reddit Revolt" has pitted a coterie of left-leaning "social justice warriors" against a ragtag, right-leaning, and rambunctious crew who call themselves free-speech activists. Tensions between Reddit administrators and certain subreddits—most notably, the pro-Trump subreddit called r/The_Donald and a now-banned conspiracy theory subreddit called r/pizzagate that believes high-level world leaders operate and patronize international child-trafficking rings—have been high over the past year, as these communities' impolitic and often impolite content raised the hackles of the website's generally more liberal operators. Where Huffman, or u/spez as he is known on Reddit, really crossed a line with certain Redditors is when he admitted to amending user comments that were critical of him to appear like they were criticizing moderators of r/The_Donald instead. While some have been able to forgive Huffman's faux pas as an immature but benign troll against a community that constantly causes problems, others have decided to leave the platform all together in search of more censorship-averse websites.
Of course, internet companies like Reddit and Twitter are private corporations that can run their businesses however they see fit. If that includes censorship, so be it. Users are free to seek or build a better alternative—as users of the still relatively-obscure Voat or Gab platforms have—or just stop using the service altogether.
Yet a social network is only as valuable as, well, its network. If everyone you know insists on using a certain service, you're probably going to use that one, too. Even if you don't personally use a particular network, if enough people in a country or planet do use it, then its policies and priorities could have a major impact on your life.
And then there's the value of "free speech" on a conceptual level. If you hold free speech to be an ideal worth fighting for, you will push platforms to protect it, even if it is costly or inconvenient.
This is a conundrum that we didn't have to seriously deal with for a long time. In their early days, social-media platforms were "open" merely by virtue of their limited scale. Far fewer people used these websites, and the early adopters who did were largely internet-hardened veterans of forums and IRC channels who were not exactly allergic to a good flame war.
For years, social media platforms touted this openness as a key cultural and design feature of their services. Former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo famously characterized the microblogging platform as "the free speech wing of the free speech party." Mark Zuckerberg marketed Facebook as a "place where people across the world share their views and ideas." And of course Reddit has long positioned itself as a "free speech site with very few exceptions"—even when said speech was personally revolting to its operators. Only criminal acts, "doxing," IP violations, and perhaps targeted harassment were grounds for platform intervention—and even then, in a limited fashion. Other than that, users were expected to generally work things out among themselves.
This ethos of voluntary collaboration and largely laissez faire moderation characterized early optimism about our odds with "Web 2.0," as perhaps best evidenced by Time magazine's pick for the 2006 Person of the Year: "YOU," meaning all of the people who were commenting and vlogging and sharing and liking the mass of newly-generated digital content for the first time. Our future was no longer shaped primarily by "conflict or great men," wrote Time's Lev Grossman. Rather, our destiny laid in "community and collaboration on a scale never seen before" and "the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing…that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes."
It was a pretty picture. Unshackled by the physical restraints of paper, ink, and film, a new breed of dynamic infovores would to produce a plethora of reports and opinions on events around the clock. Walls would be broken down and new perspectives could finally see the light. Media gatekeepers would be more of a luxury—for style and sophistication—than a necessity to deliver a solid product. Children could learn Greek on YouTube! New businesses could be launched from a blog! The revolution—at least those amenable to U.S. foreign policy goals—would be live-Tweeted! Don't like it? Don't click. Or maybe start a change.org petition if you're really fired up.
Initially, the social Internet seemed to deliver the promise of pure online voluntaryism so long theorized by libertarians. And in terms of delivering content and communication, it's worked pretty well. We have more access to more media on more subjects than ever before.
But it is clear now that the relative harmony of early online platforms did not scale very well. As more people with radically diverse beliefs and backgrounds joined in, clashes and controversy were sure to follow. Today, one person's "free speech" is too often another's "bigotry."
One decade on from Grossman's love letter to the social web, we can we can observe "the few" struggling mightily to wrest power back from "the many"—and apparently being heartily cheered on by the crowds in the process. Many of the new features that social media networks roll out these days are tools for blocking controversial content and promoting more sanitized fare. Administrators act less like neutral platform providers, blind and agnostic to the value of user content, and more like editorial curators. In a way, social-media platforms have not so much "disrupted" the old media gatekeepers as they have merely introduced a watered-down version of the same concept.
Perhaps social media's evolution from darling of decentralization to glorified kindergarten cop should have been obvious from the get go. Technology is only a tool. It can amplify or dampen user taste, but rarely fundamentally change it. If 40 percent of your core user base supports censoring certain types of content, you will probably need to build tools that will censor certain types of content.
The vision of a web that is fundamentally open and voluntary was a beautiful one, but perhaps one that erroneously projected its proponents' tastes and backgrounds onto more humans than it actually appealed. Those who value the rough-and-tumble world of an uncensored Internet can still find that in particular private havens across the web. But web Balkanization is here to stay, and most people will choose a sanitized version of digital reality.
Photo Credit: Nan Palmero/Flickr
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.
-
And infogalactic instead of wikipedia.
-
and the continued scourge of rude comment sections.
What the fuck are you talking about?
-
Well, a scourge is a whip with multiple separate strands, or threads. Each one inflicting slightly less force than a single unified strand, but causing more pain in agregate. It was used in floggings.
I think it means we're supposed to be commenting from a golf course.
-
Oh, piss off!
-
I was seriously expecting that link to point to "#comment".
-
Christ, what an asshole!
-
Fuck this guy!
-
Social media and platforms like YouTube displaced the old media and new alternatives will make Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube into the new-old media if they drive enough people away. Let them restrict speech and destroy their own businesses if they choose to do so, people who value open and free expression will just go elsewhere which is fine.
-
And the Berkeley free speech movement finally bears fruit - - - --
-
Have you tried to have a calm, rational discussion with self-described "social justice" advocates? It doesn't work. You can't have civil discourse with someone who's first principle is that you inherit the moral weight of your ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic background.
-
Yup. Look up Laurie Penny.
-
Thanks for mansplaining that to us.
-
"CEO Dick Costolo famously characterized the microblogging platform as "the free speech wing of the free speech party." Mark Zuckerberg marketed Facebook as a "place where people across the world share their views and ideas."
Here's the the thing. These people don't give a shit about free speech. They care about a type of free speech; one in which agrees with their views. What they're saying is 'a place to come and be like minded'. In their conceptualization of what constitutes free speech differing views - especially those they disagree with - doesn't enter their mind. So when something like Donald Trump's election happens, they react accordingly. What we're seeing with FB, Twitter, Reddit, Google and youtube is PRECISELY what the founding fathers meant by 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.' They could not foresee social media but they understood the human condition and this simple but powerful axiom that clearly applies in contemporary times. If social media is a microcosm of the world at large, to believe in free speech takes a certain mindset (it does take some courage to be able to tolerate a view you don't agree with) I'm afraid too many people are unwilling to accept. Or, at least, they need to be made aware that there's no such thing as 'balancing free speech'. Here we can conclude free speech is all or nothing; a zero sum calculation. Because today your neighbour is silence, tomorrow it can be you.
-
silenced. I think it's because of grammar errors Reason is falling short.
-
I blame the infiltration of the site by Canadian sleeper eh-gents.
-
The only websites I actually utilize for social interaction are: Reddit, Reason, and Politico.
To be fair, has anyone actually tried having a reasonable discussion in the comments section at Politico? It's literally almost impossible.
-
Can't be any more impossible than Huffpo.
Balko's Agitator community tried to relocate there, and man... you just can't discuss issues over there. It killed the community pretty quick.
-
True. I had though both communities were pretty bad when they were based on the Disqus system, but I actually think switching over to Facebook accounts has made both websites inferior platforms of actual discussion.
-
thought*
-
Prior to ESPN switching to FB, its soccer threads were not that bad. Sure, there were clowns (like all places) but they were offset by a couple of knowledgable people you can discuss the sport with in a rational manner.
Now? Forget about it.
-
You're a soccer fan? Favorite teams?
-
AC Milan.
-
You?
-
Swansea City. Although I'm a fanatical follower of Marcelo Bielsa. I was really sad when Swansea didn't get him and then when Bielsa decided to not manage Lazio.
-
Interesting cat this Bielsa. I have no idea what happened at Lazio. Didn't he just quit after a week or so? Why doe you like him?
-
I'm a huge fan of his relentless style of pressing combined with a much faster paced, vertical passing game when it's called for, but also an ability to move the ball around with short passing. Interestingly, when he managed Marseille, his team was 2nd in the league in both average passing distance AND passing accuracy. Also, I love just how crazy he is.
Yeah, apparently the owner of Lazio back tracked on some of the promises he had made Bielsa so he just left. Bielsa expects honesty and an element of loyalty, probably to a fault.
-
Oh, and his 3-3-1-3 formation is fucking awesome to watch.
-
Yeh, I've seen the formation or variation thereof in Serie A for quite some time now.
-
Unfortunately I rarely get to see anything other than a 4-4-2, or 4-2-3-1 in the PL. I love the more abnormal formations personally.
-
Switching to Facebook based comments is a great way to get me to stop posting.
I would be fired for some of the comments I post here at Reason, if they were posted to Facebook under my real name.
-
And it wouldn't be the sweariness of my comments here either, it would be the failure to abjectly bow at the Church of Climate Change that would do me in..... And I'm an avowed lukewarmer, but to the true believers, we're worse than the full on deniers....
-
You should consider yourself lucky, heretics used to get burned at the stake.
-
Modern heretics are much better armed and the witch-burners of this generation are giant cowardly babies.
-
Agreed. I have a political life and a professional life. They do not mingle.
-
Ditto, this
-
That was a damn shame. The Agitator comments were great. A bit like Reason, but more polite (mostly) and less crowded.
-
Let me find my shocked face... it's just SJW attacks all the way down.
If one touches the third rail of, for example, race they will find themselves in a whole bunch of trouble. See John Derbyshire as an example for his frank (racist?) article about not going into certain sections of the city, and how blacks view whites.
Or Larry Summers about science and women. And he is a lefty!
-
"and the continued scourge of rude comment sections."
Again. Missing the point.
I don't know where this belief that debate must be 'clean' and 'sanitized' came from but it probably, if I were to guess, developed by people who don't practice what the preach. Or don't read history all that much. If you observe how great minds have debated one another, it wasn't always tea and biscuits (Machiavelli was known to be fiery or witness the great arguments between Burke and Paine). Or just listen to people like Wilbon and Stephen A. Smith on the radio; they can barely contain themselves on air so imagine in private!
This thing of in the 'public discourse it must be civil' is noble and even required in some cases, but to call it a scourge is bull shit and runs directly and diametrically opposed to LIBERTY.
Now fuck off.
-
-
Easily one of their top 10. Brilliant stuff.
-
I do think there should be certain etiquette observed in reasonable discussion, but as a matter of etiquette only, not policy. I've found it increasingly difficult to locate places around the internet where you can actually have reasonable discussion without the conversation quickly devolving into useless ad hominem.
-
Yes that is true. But also true is the idea that unreasonable discussion should also be always allowed...
-
Agreed.
-
I'm not a big user of social media or comment sections besides this here. But I think that a certain kind of rudeness/unpleasantness is a big part of what makes this comment section, and a few other open forum type sites I used to participate in, work so well. It serves a dual role, making sure that the people who stick around actually get it, and (to a lesser extent) encourages people to behave. Though, as we've seen, one determined person can still fuck it up pretty good.
-
Look at Geert Vilders. The Dutch government has effectively criminalized criticizing their immigration policies. Here though we have a move evolved approach. Criticism will simply be automatically deleted across all platforms. I look forward to many scintillating online conversations running the gamut from kittens to ponies.
-
Mrs. O' Sullivan is consistently Reason's sharpest contributor. Thank you for publishing her and more like this please.
-
This comment section is a cesspool of vitriol and filth. Reason needs to shut it down. And if they refuse to do the job, I'm sure Preet will be happy to pull the plug on it.
-
D+ Troll harder.
-
Shut up, Alice
-
It is pretty obvious what went wrong; the tech industry is filled with fascist progressives who don't care about freedom or free speech. I don't care how committed to freedom someone like Zuckerberg claims to be, it doesn't matter if his company is filled with nasty progressives who view silencing non progressives as their moral duty.
You are only as free as the society you live in allows you to be. The government can make you less free, but you can only be as free as society at large is tolerant. Society's tolerance is the ceiling, government's tolerance is the floor.
-
So we're essentially being compacted as the ceiling falls in on us and the floor keeps rising.
-
I'm surprised that the article didn't mention trolls as a factor in this at all. They don't add value, and can drive people off. It's not always about civil vs uncivil discourse. Sometimes it's about people wanting to talk about turkey without having it devolve into rants about the Armenian genocide EVERY SINGLE TIME.
-
Sometimes it's about people wanting to talk about turkey without having it devolve into rants about the Armenian genocide EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Srsly, can't we just discuss sandwiches without bringing up genocide?
-
If you want free speech then twitter is not your place and nor is facebook. Gab, which can be found at gab.ai is wide open. I've been a member after being on their waiting list for about a week or two. Free speech everywhere there. I suggest you all try it.
-
It's almost like building social networking applications as walled gardens instead of open protocols like earlier internet applications was a big mistake.
-
It is also almost like anti trust law might matter in the 21st century.
-
Nah, they can collapse on their own easily enough, if the popular will exists. We'll see what happens with the retaliatory Kellogg's and Buzzfeed advertiser boycotts.
At any rate, any replacement that has some central authority is going to get infected by progs as well, it's how they operate. P2P, janky as it may be, is critical for the future.
-
I'm interested in checking out Gab, but ultimately I think a fully open-source, uncensored network will be the answer to this problem.
-
I remember USENET a decade ago. The amount of spam made it pretty unusable.
-
the continued scourge of rude comment sections
This was specifically directed at us, yes?
-
just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citroën 2CV . look here....... Clik This Link inYour Browser
===========================> http://www.homejobs7.com
-
There is no free speech on social media as that is private property. The owners of those properties get to decide what is or isnt published. Whatever I disagree with regarding Reason they do seem to be true believers in free speech and they are a real standout in that respect.