Name: Ali Mahdi                                                                                                                                                                                              Date: 2/28/2022 

                        Should Social Media platforms of free speech, regulate the actions of their users? 

Spotify collapsed under all the pressure and did what they disagreed with, basically, they didn’t stand their ground. Them doing this would in some way “open the floodgates” and can affect them negatively in the future. Because now, if a large group of people wants Spotify to ban someone or do what they want, they now know to just keep on annoying them and repeating to get what they want. 

A social media platform, “A system for disseminating information over the Internet to a selected group of followers”. Can the owners be held responsible for the actions of those using their platform, or should they let those using their platform say what they want? On one side there’s a “Free speech at all costs” perspective people say mention that Spotify is a platform of free speech and don’t assume responsibility for their users say, so Joe Rogan for example should be able to say what he wants, which in this case Spotify would be neutral. Simply, when it comes to free speech, “Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections or not.” The other side/perspective is believing that companies need to self-regulate or be regulated. In this point of view, people say that there is a point where free speech at all costs gets too far and that the owners of the platform should step in. In this case, people are saying that the rule of free speech is getting out of hand since it’s affecting other people negatively.  Some believe that this is the case with Joe Rogan and that he should he “crossed the line” with free speech, because he gets millions of views per episode, some think that he should be held accountable for him saying what he wants since his popularity gives him a power which means there are a big group of people that believe what he says blindly. But is that their fault for being ignorant, or Joe Rogan’s for saying what he wants without much of a filter? Now, we as a society are very diverse in opinions about these subjects.  

We as a society should come to realize that Spotify and other platforms like it are neutral. And that, we should follow the “free speech at any cost” side. Here’s why, if you look at the two perspectives and the situation with Joe Rogan, the free speech at any cost only makes sense, because Joe Rogan didn’t choose to have a percentage of his viewers believe his every word. The only ones that can be blamed are those being ignorant enough to believe someone’s every word, who completely disregard that his podcast is a podcast that is in the entertainment and talk show genre, which is meant for having a good time. The “Free speech at any cost” perspective doesn’t work in every case, but in this context, if social media platforms like Spotify are neutral, this perspective does make more sense. Therefore, we should all be more open to other perspectives before concluding, for future cases, rather than choosing sides right away. Ultimately the subject is a “slippery slope”. But no matter what, when it comes to the U.S.A., everyone has their right to free speech, and silencing someone like Joe Rogan, or taking down the majority of their content, would be completely going against that. Think about it, does it make sense for a platform of free speech to “regulate” and manage what their users are saying?