Free Speech! According to many historians, Free speech is derived from the Greek word “Isegorian.” But the political theorist, Teresa Bejan, explains that “Isegorian” literally translates to “Equal speech in public.” Basically, a free assembly where people come together and talk. In contrast, American legal theorists, like Oliver Holmes, describe Isegorian as a free market competition. Holmes noted that “the best test of truth” is how easily it is accepted in “the competition of the market.”
If you read that again, you will realize that’s exactly the concept of social media. On social media, whether it is Instagram or X, the test of truth is the engagement, the likes, and the shares. Social media gives us the delusion that an idea is worthy of debate if it has high enough engagement. And we all know that usually the wildest takes or most controversial opinions get more engagement. Hence, free speech!
What about other ideas? Ideas that actually make sense, opinions that are not bizarre, news that don’t entertain but state facts, and ideas that people don’t agree with. Does simply being able to post on social media equate to free speech, and being unable to mean an infringement of free speech?
Nature and Reality of Social Media
Social media is not the Isegorian that Socrates and Plato talked about. Social media is a place to monetize opinion. The more controversial the opinion, the more engagement, the more data generated, and the more people to sell ads to. Social media is not a democratic institute to share ideas. It’s a web of algorithms and predictions to increase engagement and make a profit. When our primary source of communication only aims to make a profit, free speech takes a backseat.
Now, let’s come to Mark Zuckerberg’s recent announcement of making Meta a platform for free speech, following in the footsteps of Elon Musk. Like Musk, Meta plans to remove content moderation and fact-checkers, instead, they would rely on Community Notes. This no limit on speech or absolute free speech is what writer Max Fisher calls the “Techno-Libertarian Ideal.” This idea believes that censorship or content moderation is a bad thing. In his book, The Chaos Machines, Max Fisher writes that tech moguls like Musk and Mark believe that “Engagement means Value” and “Free Speech beats Bad Speech.”
Does Free Speech Beat Bad Speech?
Mark Zuckerberg in his announcement mentioned that they are going back to their roots. By ‘going back,’ they mean that they will be removing the content moderation they implemented out of ‘goodwill’ in 2017 which has now gone ‘too far.’ Let’s break down this ‘goodwill.’
Social media companies started moderating content and kicking out trolls not out of goodwill, but to make advertisers stay. Advertisers started pulling out of Twitter and Facebook as they were worried that “the advertisement will appear next to the wrong message.” Hate speech makes advertisers anxious and that hurts the bottom line of these social media companies.
Back in 2020, a Facebook data analyst, revealed how Facebook’s algorithm pushed content that was considered “Hate Bait,” or content that caused most emotional outrage. Facebook also claimed to remove hate speech from its platform, but a report from the Wall Street Journal exposed that it only removes 2% of all posts flagged as hate speech.
The case of Twitter isn’t better. After Elon “Absolute Free Speech” Musk took over, the rate of hate speech doubled on the platform. It also didn’t become a bastion of free speech as many accounts of journalists and people critical of Musk got suspended. In the end, free speech doesn’t beat bad speech!
What Went Wrong with Social Media and Free Speech?
Activist Jullian C York asks us to imagine social media as a society where laws are made inside locked doors without any public knowledge or input. In this society, the laws are subject to change at the whims of a few. There is no democratic participation, transparency, or due process. Like in every society, mistakes will be made but in this one, there is no recourse for the individual. York states that “this society exists inside social media platforms created in Silicon Valley and exported throughout the rest of the world.”
Writer Ben Wizner explained that free speech doesn’t apply to social media. Why? Because the people owning these social media platforms also have free speech under the “First Amendment.” Social media, instead of being a free and open marketplace, is actually a meeting room where the boss decides what is allowed and what is not. So, when you are on a private platform, you are not subjected to free speech laws, but to the decisions and whims of whoever owns the platform.
Read Next: Is Project 2025 a Democratic Evolution or Erosion?