Like communism, free speech is one of those things that sounds like a good idea in theory, but rapidly goes off the rails when exposed to humanity. Even trying to think through the permutations and implications of free speech online is a one-way ticket to crazy town.
The idea that anyone should be able to say whatever they want about anything or anyone at any time is really hard to get behind. Even though we know that determining what’s okay or not always ends up being arbitrary and fraught. Even though there is the valid argument that it’s better out in the open than hidden away and festering.
But in the real world it’s hard to justify the value of giving people carte blanche to spew hate, ignorance or lies. Even if some people approve of or believe the sentiments. Because we increasingly know that it doesn’t stop at just spewing.
Speech influences people. Sometimes their thoughts, but also their actions. Actions that can hurt other people who disagree, stand up to them, or who just have the bad fortune of embodying whatever it is the spewers don’t like.
These issues and behaviours weren’t invented when the internet came along. Humans being what we are, we’ve had dirty arguments and slandered others and formed mobs since there were enough humans to form them. The pitchforks came later, but the torches were probably the second thing we did with fire.
At the same time, in the course of human history, rarely do things go well when freedom of speech is actively curtailed. Dictatorships, propaganda, detentions, disappearances, erasures.
We’ve also become virulently partisan. Not only has journalism suffered a Permian-level extinction event, but in place of discourse or reporting various perspectives, it’s become commonplace to shout down those we disagree with just because we disagree.
And by shout down I mean anything from leaving snarky (often irrelevant) comments, to reporting posts as violating terms of use or community standards, to organizing harassment campaigns and doxxing.
It’s hard to do the work of reporting, educating or even just communicating when you’re afraid for your own or your family’s safety.
But... surely randos on Facebook or YouTube are giving us the real, unfiltered truth, since they’re not corporate shills or under government control or whatnot, right?
Thing is, technically, very few of us can actually speak freely online. None of us using social platforms owns or manages them or dictates the terms of use. We don’t even pay for them (with money). Users are subject to the rules, whims and wars of other users and the powers that be.
From Twitter to TikTok, any time you build or broadcast you do not have the unfettered right to free speech, no matter what your politics or passions. The plug could be pulled at any time.
Now, for most folks, you can holler into the void all you like and nothing is likely to happen. If you don’t have an audience, then who’s going to notice and report if you’re inciting atrocities or just being obnoxious? If you do have an audience, though… it can get ugly, as outlined above.
This is where the crux of the matter shifts from freedom of speech to freedom of reach.
You may have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want, but no one has to listen, or enable you to reach others, or make money doing it. In fact, they retain the right to do the opposite if you’re on their property.
It’s not a new idea. Randall Munroe’s xkcd outlined it nicely some time ago. And the podcast Your Undivided Attention has been covering it in illuminating depth.
It’s interesting that, to date, one of the more common “serious” punishments for those deemed rule-breakers on social platforms has been demonetization. It’s capitalist-inspired logic, but flawed.
Don’t stop the behaviour, but stop people or groups from making ad revenue from their content. Sure, it’s inconvenient for them, but it can also backfire. With the size and reach of groups we’re talking about, they have or can start up other revenue sources, and they’re still able to reach their audience.
And now the penalized can yell about rights violations and their enemies trying to silence them, which can conveniently be spun into fundraising campaigns that quickly eclipse lost ad revenue. That’ll learn ‘em...
Sure, there’ve been a handful of glaring examples where media figures or extremist groups have been fully “deplatformed.” This means blocking a person or group’s account, not hosting their content, etc.
Social platform companies are very reluctant to remove accounts entirely, though, even temporarily, as it is rightly seen as a slippery slope. And to some degree, it can give a great deal of arbitrary power to a small group or even a single individual.
We saw this when CloudFlare’s CEO pulled the plug on the neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer. CloudFlare kicked off 8chan recently, too. If you’re not familiar, 8chan was spun up because everywhere else was becoming, in the founder’s estimation, too surveilled and restrictive. Among other sins, it’s become the “go-to platform for mass shooters.” Ain’t that just something for the ol’ LinkedIn profile?
For all their worship of moving fast and disrupting old systems, tech platforms’ terms of use and policies and procedures for abuse lag way behind present day realities. You know you’re woefully slow-moving and inadequate when people have begun to clamor for governments to regulate you.
It’s hard to believe tech companies actually care, or to be surprised at the degree to which social platforms have become cesspools, when the work of maintaining order is so often outsourced to overworked, underpaid, minimally trained and (eventually) traumatized contractors.
And there’s that other thing. Most tech companies are still run by a middle-to-upper-class white male majority. Additionally, those becoming radicalized and turning into violent extremists are also overwhelmingly young white men.
So when those most suffering from the current results of rampant “free speech” are not the white male majority, are those people really the best ones to be debating, codifying, and enforcing the rules on these platforms? As a woman, it brings to mind rooms of religiously affiliated old men making laws about women’s bodily autonomy.
We used to feel safe cocooned in the notion that people would say things online they’d never say to your face. But bloody current events have proven that an in-person insult is the least of your worries when “free speech” spills over into the real world from social platforms.
Voltaire may have been willing to defend to the death others’ right to say things he happened to disagree with. But then, no one ever swatted him.
M-Theory is an opinion column by Melanie Baker. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Communitech. Melle can be reached on Twitter at @melle or by email at me@melle.ca.
