Censorship in the internet age

In recent news, Youtuber, Andrew Tate, has been banned from all top social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Tiktok, and twitch. Tate was best known for founding the unaccredited online Hustler’s University and spreading misogyny and hate against women. Why this is of any interest to the public is because it once again brings up the question of freedom of speech. According to many Tate supporters, banning him from social media infringes on his freedom of expression. Not too long ago Former President Trump’s supporters also argued this point after he was permanently suspended from Twitter. The president racked up over 20,000 tweets during his tenure and if a president’s speech can be stifled on social media, then what is freedom of expression and how does it function on the internet?

‍

At the dawn of the internet in the late 1990’s the massive selling point for this new frontier was a world of freer, uncensored, self-expression. That has actually not been the case as more and more people are banned from social media platforms every day. In the US, according to a Supreme court ruling in 1996, the internet is a free speech zone bearing the same rules as the First Amendment. What this means is that the government cannot restrict access and expression on the internet.

‍

First Amendment laws are intended to prevent governmental infringement on expression. It prevents big government authorities from stifling dissent and having unilateral control of us. In essence, the first amendment is to prevent dictatorship and only covers governmental infringement on human rights.

‍

Social media platforms are not the government and therefore are not beholden to first amendment rules. According to the supreme court ruling above, you’re free on the internet but because these platforms are private, not governmental, they are run separately from government laws. In fact, what this means is that private social media platforms also have first amendment protection on who they allow on their platform. Most social media platforms have rules for engagement and hate speech policies. These social platforms automatically take down content that violates standards on violence, sexuality, privacy, harassment, self-harm, and other issues. When you sign up to these platforms, part of what grants you access is consenting to these policies. This means that these platforms are responsible for the actions of users on their platforms. So if a user like Tate says something that leads to violence or spreads misinformation, YouTube is automatically responsible for letting that information spread because they have provided a platform to amplify said misinformation.

‍

A worrying concern these days is that social media is now run as big governments. Yes, you can say that Facebook, Twitter, and the rest are not governmental organizations but with the way the world today is structured and the power these platforms hold collectively, they might as well be state entities or countries on their own. Everything happens on social media these days and it is pretty much the only way to connect. President Trump argued that he had lost valuable access to directly connecting with his core masses by being suspended for life from Twitter. Social media plays an important role in our collective lives in the world today so a regulatory action on one of these platforms can carry as much impact as the government infringing on your expression.

‍

But unlike the government, social media platforms are abundant and easily accessible. Your access to twitter may be restricted but you’re not banned from the internet as a whole. Andrew Tate is still conducting interviews and Trump is still campaigning despite claiming that they have been censored. Despite the big role social media plays in our lives, internet bans are nothing more than a minor personal inconvenience. Ultimately, the question that should be asked is what rules should govern private establishments and not a question on free speech.

‍