Like most people, I spend much of my free time online. Whether on TikTok or Instagram, I am scrolling through a constant stream of information. Just like most people, however, I am not fact checking every single video or post I come into contact with. With the new digital age, it’s like a game of telephone. From one TikTok to an Instagram Reel to a post on X, news and ideas spread. However, without proper moderation, online information can become easily malleable, therefore creating misinformation. Moreover, inaccurate content is not the sole concern. Now, the digital landscape in some ways has become a free for all. Content that goes unchecked has led to vast harassment, trolling, and harm. When looking for solutions to misinformation and online behavior comes the fear of censorship. Who is to say something is false or true? What is the motive behind allowing certain information to be posted but not others? As our technology evolves, so should the systems that control it.
Digital Public Squares
The idea of a Public Square is an idealistic dream. A location where conversation and debate is encouraged, where people of all backgrounds can gather. However, breaking down this utopian space shows how vastly different it is from the social media platforms that we have developed.
Yale Law Journal states, “while social-media forums may feel like public spaces, and the companies that own them may exploit this perception to their advantage, their relationship to the public is fundamentally commercial and contractual.”
Social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and X have become centralized, the complete opposite of what a public square is intended to be. While centralized platforms are often widely accessible and easy to use, the drawback often outweighs the good. As social media has become widely popularized, so have algorithms. When pursuing your social media feed, it can be difficult to discern content curated purely for your benefit or for the benefit of others. Yes, as users of these platforms, we are asking for personal curation. However, it becomes concerning when we are not explicitly told why we are seeing certain information and not others. Facebook and Instagram are owned by Mark Zucherburg, X by Elon Musk, but are these individuals creating platforms as “Public Squares” or for their own economic and political benefit?
Ideally, platforms made for and by the public are what we should be striving for. Platforms like Wikipedia that are run by a multitude of individuals for the sole purpose of educating and inviting growth, rather than spaces made purely for monetary gain.
Censorship or Protection?
While having social media companies control and regulate our content can be concerning, it is also important to note the areas where this provides a safer, more trustworthy environment. Policies set up by platforms ensure the removal of false accounts and harassment as a way to protect users from harm. An example of successful regulation was when New Jersey state Senator Declan O’Scanlon used the former app Twitter to discourage COVID-19 vaccines. As a result of his misleading language and information, his account was temporarily suspended. While this sparked outrage from right leaning users, it was a step taken by Twitter to enforce the posting of credible and true content.
Similarly, the conservative influencer Douglass Mackey was convicted for depriving people of the right to vote during the 2016 Presidential election. Utilizing numerous Twitter accounts to disseminate disinformation regarding Hillary Clinton, Mackey created conspiracies and rumours that harmed the public perception of the candidate. He spread blatant lies and doctored photos to target specific demographics.
In many ways, social media does indeed reflect the concept of Public Squares. Platforms are meant to be spaces of communal gathering where ideas and thoughts are shared. However, the involvement of private organizations and individuals running these platforms interferes with the free landscape. While the current state of social media in our society has numerous issues, these examples by The Free Speech Project are evidence that some form of regulation and monitoring is a necessity.