From: joerogan
The topic of censorship on social media platforms is an area of significant debate and concern, primarily because these platforms are often considered the new public square where discourse and free expression occur. The nuances of this issue revolve around how social media companies manage content and regulate speech on their platforms.
Social Media as the New Public Square
Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and others have become essential spaces for public dialogue and information exchange. They are now viewed as the new public square, but the regulation of speech on these platforms brings the principle of the First Amendment into question. There is a growing argument that these platforms should be treated as public utilities and that free speech protections should apply to them.
Free Speech Concerns
The principle of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be expanded to include protections on social media platforms, treating big social media companies as public utilities to ensure freedom of speech [02:09:23].
Algorithms and Content Suppression
There is concern about how social media algorithms affect the visibility of content. These algorithms can be adjusted to deem available certain types of content or to suppress others, which creates a lack of transparency around which content is prioritized.
- YouTube, for one, has been accused of deprioritizing “borderline” outlets—those that do not belong to large or traditional media outlets. These independent outlets can be suppressed through changed algorithms aimed at combating fake news [01:45:13].
Censorship and Bias
Censorship on social media is perceived to often skew in favor of more mainstream and left-leaning perspectives. For instance, during the Hunter Biden email controversy, platforms like Twitter and Facebook faced backlash for blocking initial postings of the story, raising allegations of censorship [03:21:19].
- Incident Example: Twitter banned the New York Post over the Hunter Biden story, claiming without evidence that it might be election meddling, showing a bias in favoring certain viewpoints over others [03:23:14]. This incident emphasizes the complexity and the often criticized nature of content moderation policies.
Calls for Regulation and Transparency
There is an ongoing demand for transparency in how content moderation decisions are made. Some commentators believe effective regulation is necessary to ensure that social media companies do not misuse their power to shape public discourse:
- Advocacy for Change: A call for legislation to make social media companies more transparent and hold them accountable for systemic biases in content moderation [02:09:00].
Conclusion
The complexity of social media and censorship lies in balancing user safety, corporate responsibility, and the freedom of speech. As social media continues to grow in influence, the debate on whether these platforms should operate like public utilities—favoring transparency and equal discourse—gains momentum. While some progress has been made, the conversation about how best to navigate these spaces continues to evolve.