Scott Adam (of Dilbert fame) recently posted about how he had been “shadowbanned” by Twitter. This is when your tweets and replies are not visible to your followers, but not in a way that is obvious. It is a form of censorship forced on people whose ideas or opinions are at odds with those of the social media firm.
This method of speech suppression is of particular concern given the rise of social media as a means of exercising free speech. I understand the desire of these social media sites to maintain a PG-rated and “safe” environments, but when their censorship extends beyond such basic protection and into the realm of limiting political speech then I think they’ve gone too far; at that point they’ve become political advocates and should be treated as such. In many cases there are few if any options for reaching the digital masses without the use of an established social media “network”.
I’d love to hear legal opinions regarding such censorship tactics by Google (via limiting search hits), Facebook (by blocking content or specific political causes or candidates), and Twitter.