I predicted earlier (here, here) that social media moguls would use their platforms to steer opinion by limiting speech. Here is an example where a social media company has allegedly attempted to limit speech directly associated with a political campaign. If this doesn’t raise your eyebrows, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Now, to be completely honest, I don’t particularly agree with this candidate’s views. But their views are not my concern; what is my concern is that this social media firm appears to be silencing politicians with whom it disagrees. Bear in mind that even if you do agree with this company’s alleged attempts to censor this particular political speech, keep in mind that next time it might be your opinion that is quashed.
This would not be a problem if it were not for the success of these social media platforms. They have become the de facto means of communication for so many that their importance in the communication of ideas cannot be underestimated. To be fair, the social media companies are within their rights to take such action: the 1st amendment guarantees you the right to free speech, but not a platform from which to speak. You truly only have free speech in a venue that you control. However, the use of these social media systems to disseminate opinion and information has become so ingrained in our society that I would argue that such systems are simply a service, and as such cannot discriminate based on content. Let me elaborate a bit more…
A physical media publisher seeks out those who produce works that they want to publish. They publish books/magazines/etc under their own brand label, and as such what they publish affects the opinion of that brand. Such companies should be allowed to pick and choose the authors they wish to represent. However, a simple printer does not suffer the same association with the content they print. What they print is branded by the author and their material, without regard for the printer in any way. For that reason the printer should not be allowed to refuse to print materials based on content. Just as a baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, neither should a printer be able to refuse to print invitations for such a wedding (or announcements, or photo books of wedding photos, etc.). We can have a long argument about whether or not freedom of association allows such discrimination, but for now let’s assume it does not (we’ll wait for the final court say before commenting more on this topic…).
Social media sites are nothing more that digital printers. No one associates the content of a <insert social media site name here> posting with the social media site; instead, they associate the contents only with the author. The social media site is free to post its own opinions on any number of topics (including their opposition to particular posts) and make known that these are their opinions, but Joe Blow’s post about their political beliefs are just that – their political beliefs. Only a simpleton would assume that the independent posts of an individual would represent the opinion of the social media company that hosts this site along with the sites of millions of others.
When social media platforms seek to limit particular political speech, they are interfering with our political process. We should raise our voice loudly to protest such actions whenever they occur.