Social media have disrupted the way individuals communicate, and nowadays, it is difficult to imagine how people exchanged messages fifteen years ago. As of April 2021, in the US alone, more than seventy percent of the public uses at least one type of social media (“Social Media”). Nevertheless, there is also a variety of issues which are related to the phenomenon of social media, and the most topical one concerns the subject of free speech. Currently, social networks do not have to abide by the first amendment, which leads to situations when they can openly ban users on their platforms. The removal of Donald Trump’s accounts from all major social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram is the most controversial event related to free speech to date (Denham). As a result, once again, a debate arose in society about whether it would be reasonable to extend the power of the First Amendment to include social media. In my view, social media must be subject to the First Amendment because they serve millions of people for whom these platforms often constitute the only place where they can speak openly.
Cyberspace is a vast environment where people can assemble together and discuss various topics, and social media represent the primary platform where the majority of users engage in discussions. In other words, social media websites such as Facebook serve as people’s channels through which they can express their concerns, points of view and exchange opinions with others. At the same time, currently, users of Facebook do no have any protection and can be easily de-platformed within minutes if their account or post fails to meet the website’s rules. Moreover, there are cases when people were denied an opportunity to reactivate their account after disabling despite confirming their identity (Hill). Thus, social media virtually can prevent individuals from participating in discourse and social activities occurring on their websites.
Users of social media are not compensated for the absence of free speech and the possibility of being granted a ban from the administrators. While the platforms themselves openly utilize users’ personal data and hand it to third parties. In 2018, it was revealed that Facebook provided Cambridge Analytica with the personal information of more than eighty million users (Isaak and Hanna 56). This fact demonstrates how social media exploit their users by selling their private data while refusing to allow them to speak up freely. Therefore, forcing the aforementioned platforms to adhere to the First Amendment can help ensure that users’ right to free speech is guaranteed by the law.
Another common issue which concerns social media is moderators who are given the responsibility to make decisions on which content should be allowed on platforms. Quite often, news emerges on how moderators discriminate against certain social groups. For instance, recently, it was discovered that Facebook deleted posts by deeming them “hate speech,” in which women tried to highlight gender inequality existing in society (Nurik 2885). Moreover, on the Internet, people tend to act in a more relaxed manner and let themselves make jokes which are called “trolling.” Social media moderators may fail to distinguish between irony and sincerity and ban users who simply wanted to share content which they believed was funny. It is also reasonable to state that banning users due to their unpopular beliefs and opinions and makes many social media be perceived as authoritarian organizations. Introducing laws which would force social media to comply with the First Amendment could protect people from unjust discrimination and censorship on the part of moderators.
One of the most common points in support of the idea that social media should not be subject to the First Amendment postulates that these platforms are private entities which can have their own rules. Currently, the First Amendment applies strictly to government bodies, thus protecting citizens from the state’s overreach and interference in their freedom to speak openly. People who oppose the extending of the First Amendment to cover social media believe that by doing so, the government will infringe on the private platforms’ rights. In other words, adding new provisions to the First amendment will mean that the government will receive power to freely impede the provision of services by social media. As a result, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter will be forced to abandon their community guidelines and will ultimately lose their power of monitoring hate speech. Additionally, due to new regulations, some social media will not be able to execute their business models. For instance, a platform which maintains a safe online space for women only will have to let men utilize its service, too.
At first glance, the argument against the extension of the First Amendment sounds reasonable, yet after looking at the size of social media companies, it becomes clear that they are not ordinary private enterprises. In the US alone, Facebook and Twitter together have a market share of more than seventy percent in the social media industry (“Social”). Such results demonstrate that these two companies can be regarded as extremely large businesses which completely dominate in their particular segments.
Therefore, people who want their opinion to be heard online simply do not have any other choice apart from creating an account on one of these platforms. For example, Facebook has the largest number of social media users in the world. Yet, when this platform bans a user, it simultaneously prevents them from reaching their audience and closes their main communication channel. Such a process is reminiscent of the state putting a citizen into jail for committing a crime. Yet, in the case of a banned Facebook user, the person simply says words not approved by the platform’s authorities. Thus, by banning people, social media try to act as governments and make individuals suffer punishment in the form of losing a right to express themselves freely. Extending the First Amendment to include social media will ensure citizens’ ability to have access to their communication channel and audience.
Today, the government has to introduce new regulations which would make social media comply with the First Amendment to ensure freedom of speech for every citizen. Social media have become large platforms where people seek to share and promote their views, as well as exchange opinions on various topics. Moderators attempt to curb free speech by banning people and restricting their access to the website. The rules which define the norms and standards of appropriate behavior on social media often fail to distinguish irony from sincerity. Opponents of the extending of the First Amendment claim that social media still remain private companies which should not be regulated by the government. Yet, they ignore the factor of the size of these platforms and their large market shares. By making social media subject to the First Amendment, citizens will receive a right to speak openly and freely online.
References
Denham, Hannah. “These are the Platforms that Have Banned Trump and His Allies.” The Washington Post, 2021. Web.
Hill, Kashmir. “Many Are Abandoning Facebook. These People Have the Opposite Problem.” The New York Times, 2019. Web.
Isaak, Jim, and Hanna, Mina J. “User Data Privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and Privacy Protection.” Computer, vol. 51, no. 8, 2018, pp. 56–59. Web.
Nurik, Chloe. “‘Men Are Scum’: Self-Regulation, Hate Speech, and Gender-Based Censorship on Facebook.” International Journal of Communication, vol. 13, 2019, pp. 2878–2898.
“Social Media Fact Sheet.” Pew Research Center, 2021. Web.
“Social Media Stats in United States of America – 2021.” Statcounter, n.d. Web.