Should Social Media Companies Censor their Platforms?

From the editors:

We asked our columnists the age-old question about new-age platforms.

Pro

Companies use censorship because they have a responsibility to protect their users and deter potential violence. To begin, social media platforms are not subject to the First Amendment because they are private platforms. On a strictly legal basis, social media companies are not violating free speech – the same way Fox News is not violating free speech by not offering as many liberal perspectives as conservative ones. Thus, this argument should an ethical one rather than a legal one.

Scroll through any social media platform, and you will notice it no longer consists of a picture of your neighbor’s dog or a community effort to save the trees. As these platforms grow bigger and bigger, they become legitimate news sources. These platforms are now so large that many dwarf the audiences of most major media companies combined. As a result, they needed greater regulations. These companies have evolved from platforms to full-fledged media companies.

Once we acknowledge that these social media companies are just that – media companies – it becomes easy to see the need for a degree of self-censorship. All media companies have a set of rules and standards that they abide by to verify their content and prevent the spread of fake news. If media companies must abide by strong standards and rules, why shouldn’t these social media companies do the same?

Moreover, these social media companies are rightfully attempting to combat the spread of misinformation by preventing conspiracy theorists from posting on their platforms. This is a noble goal, especially in the aftermath of events like Pizzagate. It has become increasingly clear that malicious third parties are sometimes able to manipulate users’ data. The effects of misinformation on social media are not small; they have tangible, sometimes violent effects on society. Consequently, it is the basic responsibility of social media companies to curb the spread of such incendiary misinformation. Moreover, an accurate platform is a more appealing platform and a better business model.

There is a tradeoff between security and free speech because humans are fallible. If there is no filter on information and anything goes, then there will be consequences. When Alex Jones propagated the Pizzagate story, it added fuel to the fire, resulting in a man firing an assault rifle in a D.C. pizza parlor. When the Orlando shooter was inaccurately associated with Muslim refugees that misinformation endangered all refugees. Speech that incites violence must be removed because it causes direct harm to social media users. Thus, it’s clear that while this step might seem controversial on the surface, it’s a necessary one to protect the sanctity of platforms, their users, and the effects that arise.

– Anonymous

Con

Government censorship is dangerous and antithetical to democratic societies and is rightfully feared by the majority of civilians in the US who recognize its authoritarian implications and associations. However, social media companies are private platforms that are not bound by the First Amendment and have the right to censor information. Consumers use these platforms voluntarily and can cease using them at any point if they dislike the ways in which a company is censoring information. Thus, censorship by social media companies is both legal and appears to be less dangerous than public censorship. However, as ever, appearances can be deceiving.

Governmental censorship is dangerous because it creates an informational barrier between governmental actions, voters’ knowledge of these actions, and the rationale behind them thereby influencing who is elected into office. This is problematic as it allows already elected officials to control dissemination of information for their benefit which gives politicians too much power and leaves them less accountable. But private censorship, particularly well-meaning censorship, is dangerous for similar reasons.

Social media companies with their billions of users have the power to shape the opinions and perspectives of these users. By censoring content, a social media company is at least implicitly claiming to know what information the public ought to know and what ought to remain concealed from them. Any framework that a social media company uses to censor will have its own flaws and shortcomings which may be more damaging than the content which it is attempts to protect consumers from. These flaws arise from the difficulty of discerning what constitutes harmful content. We do not trust governments to decide which content is harmful even though we elect them because we at least implicitly recognize the impossibility of this task. So it makes little sense to trust private, self-interested corporations motivated by factors which have little at all to do with the common good of the people.

These frameworks are also frequently ideologically informed. Consequently, the specific censorial choices that are made are doing as much to influence voter opinion and public opinion generally as governmental censorship because people are increasingly reliant upon social media platforms for receiving information. Media censorship has always been a threat to political freedom, but social media has massively increased the dissemination of and accessibility to media-generated news in the technological age which has expanded social media companies’ abilities to influence people’s perceptions.

Censorship of this kind is additionally problematic because there is little transparency in how companies censor. This makes it easy for a politically or an ideologically motivated CEO or board to actively influence public perception under the guise of removing “harmful content”. Increasingly, it seems that any ideas that run counter to a certain set of accepted ideological assumptions are harmful and are consequently removed. This is problematic because it leads to circumstances in which companies are taking it upon themselves to decide how people should think. But it is also pragmatically problematic for companies as by censoring out certain content they are necessarily ostracizing many of their users who are attached to this content. Thus, censorship, while dangerous on principle, is also a suboptimal business model.

– Anonymous

Does Anonymous Writing Promote Constructive Discourse?

From the editors:

Obviously, the author of the Con piece would have preferred to be named, but we have rules.

Pro

I should not have to fear publishing a calm, reasoned argument free of hate speech and edited by peers. I should be excited to share my opinions and join the conversation because improvement requires engagement. But I am not. I am worried that if I published an article in existing campus publications, it would be misread and potentially become the defining aspect of my character for the remainder of my time at Dartmouth.

I am scared to submit an Op Ed to The Dartmouth, or any other campus publication, because attaching my name to a piece can be dangerous. Though I’m confident in my opinions, more than happy to talk with someone about them – especially if they disagree – and am open to changing them, much of this campus is not willing to have a conversation. I am worried that people will read what I say and jump quickly to conclusions about not only the strength and intent of my argument but the integrity of my character. Students I have never met will smear my name and, even worse, friends will distance themselves as a result of social pressures.

As you are undoubtedly aware, Ryan Spector published an article in The D earlier this year. It would be an understatement to say he was attacked. I am not saying he wrote a good article, but most people judge him without having met him. No one should pass judgment on someone’s character based off of one poorly written article. We all deserve to be engaged with before we are condemned.

Anonymous writing abolishes this fear. Suddenly I am able to express my opinions without worrying about personal attacks and you are forced to engage with my argument. My background and experience can help determine biases and alternative motivations, but are we not at one of the top institutions in the world? Are we not able to look for signs of bias and keep in the back of our head a reminder that the person writing might have other motives?

There are views on this campus free of malice that are not welcomed. You may struggle to think of them, but that is because they are suppressed. It is hard to determine what the acceptable differences of opinions are when differing from the opinion of the majority comes with a fear of condemnation.

I spoke my mind, I did so civilly, and because this piece is anonymous, I can contribute to the conversation without fear of attack on my character. Hopefully, an anonymous forum will help students recognize that there are plenty of members of our community who think differently and are just too scared to share. We can entertain new and old opinions that have been suppressed out of fear of being ostracized. We can begin to debate and talk with each other. Maybe, down the road, I’ll feel safe writing under my name and you will talk with me before you write about me.

– Anonymous

Con

Individuals should always seek truth. Central to this end is dialogue and discussion between people. Truth can only come from discourse if people are willing to be confronted with other ways of thinking; without honestly and openly exchanging ideas, even the wisest or most intelligent people cannot confirm their perceived reality. This kind of dialogic reevaluation is commonly referred to as constructive dialogue. In order to ensure that people do communicate their beliefs to others, some might suggest creating spaces for anonymous discussion to eliminate fears of personal judgment. Unfortunately, this is not the case—anonymous writing is a detriment to productive dialogue. Written opinions should be associated with actual names so that constructive personal exchanges can happen. Ideas can only be seriously considered when associated with people.

Initially, one might think that anonymity would embolden otherwise reserved voices to speak. Unfortunately, investigation into the matter shows otherwise. There is a considerable body of research that shows negative aspects of anonymity. Anonymity can carry unintended consequences such as discouraging disagreement and does not reduce the risks of harassment or personal attacks. Instinctive feelings about anonymity do not hold up to reality; removing the names of authors from their writing does not always improve the quality of discussion. In fact, when people know where an opinion comes from, they are more likely to listen.

Consider recent articles by Dartmouth students on sexual assault. Experiences with sexual assault can be really hard to hear, but are incredibly important for victims to share. Just as these stories need to be told notwithstanding the difficulty, all written opinions should be shared non-anonymously. When readers know the author of a piece, they are inclined to take it more seriously and respond more thoughtfully.

Sure, perhaps knowing an author’s name is only relevant to those who would recognize the author. Maybe it is sufficient to know that the author of a particular idea is speaking authentically. But as long as some anonymity is preserved, ideas will exist separately from their original context. An anonymous piece on living in poverty will make little impact unless people in proximity with the author can validate some aspects of his/her narrative. Only a real face and name can resolve the impersonality of anonymous exchange; the closer someone can get to the source of an idea, the greater the chance of understanding.

A move toward anonymity in writing is understandable. Historically, people have been hurt or killed for holding unpopular beliefs. In the face of this precedent, simple solutions might appear promising. Nevertheless, people should be able to speak openly, especially in a country with a constitutional commitment to free speech. If people are at risk of harm, the proper response is not to bend to the collective will, but to convince disputants that violence is unnecessary. In this way, anonymity is not only a facile solution, but an obstacle to real discussion.

– Anonymous