The Myth of Corporate Censorship

Image Credit: Editorial cartoon by Mike Lester
 

Is the repeated disappearance of Joe Rogan’s controversial podcasts a shred of evidence that free speech is once again under assault? Where do we draw the line regarding digital media’s dichotomous roles of “platform provider” versus “publisher”?

Free speech advocates insist that expressing and seeking out ideas without the fear of suppression or retribution is the lifeblood of a democracy. For this reason, the right should be upheld at all costs, even on the borderless Internet. As passive conduits, social media networks should merely provide spaces for user expression and interaction without intermediation. Therefore, suspending accounts of dissenting voices and removing or downranking “misinformation” are all signs of a looming peril of corporate censorship. In his February 11, 2022 article, Joe Rogan, Spotify and the dangers imposed by private threats to free speech, writer Jacob Mchangama argues that “in the digital age[,] the hearers consist of potentially millions of people who might appreciate perspectives and voices not usually covered in traditional media, and who may very well be able to distinguish between fact and fiction and to be confronted with “offensive” ideas without becoming extremists.” Private gatekeeping only hinders critical thinking development, sparks skepticism, and derails the pursuit of neutrality.

On the other side of the debate stands those who favour content regulation when the population’s collective well-being is jeopardized. To these proponents, the ubiquity of social media means that anyone – from every walk of life – can be a publisher. Therefore, actions should be taken when a person deliberately exploits the Internet’s viral and wide-reaching nature to spread unsubstantiated opinions or incite violence. Since its inception, technology giants have repeatedly been blamed for enabling extremism, with the Capitol attack and Freedom Convoy’s protests being the most recent examples. As a corporate social responsibility, these companies should step up and develop policies and algorithms that promptly prevent harmful information from amplifying. In their January 15, 2021 article, Social Media Companies Should Self-Regulate. Now., writers Michael A. Cusumano, Annabelle Gawer, and David B. Yoffie emphasize that “the goal of self-regulation should be to avoid a tragedy of the commons, where a lack of trust destroys the environment that has allowed digital platforms to thrive.” In other words, public scrutiny will keep the industry in check.

Incidents like the boycotting of Joe Rogan fuel the widespread fear of government and corporate overreach. However, it is naive to believe that the absence of content moderation can improve the industry’s neutrality. The unclouded truth is: social media algorithms are designed to reinforce users’ activity histories and, inevitably, their confirmation biases. More importantly, technology companies are incentivized to condone false and polarising messages because they generate clicks and profit. In this sense, self-regulation is a positive step towards accountability awareness. As FutureLearn indicates in its June 9, 2021 article, Freedom of speech: What does it mean and why is it important?, “cancel culture should not be an excuse for not taking responsibility for damaging actions, just as the right to free speech should not be an excuse for spreading hatred.” It is hypocritical to silence objections to falsehoods and use the glory of free speech to legitimize freedom from consequences. Contrary to the allegation, speech has never been freer with the plethora of digital channels in today’s market. Moreover, vilifying corporate responsibility is not a proactive way to address the new challenges of the digital age. If most people do not trust the government or individual companies to develop the industry standards, an independent body can be authorized by law to undertake the important work.

As a final thought, since the issue of free speech is particularly relevant today, it is constructive to establish a discourse on its moral limits. After all, questioning, understanding, and possibly changing the status quo is the very core of democracy.