Twitter has it wrong
Some people are calling it “content moderation” others are calling it “censorship”. Which ever you want to call it, it falls under tailoring free speech, ironically contradicting Twitters own mission statement.
Twitter was joined by many in the industry in restricting and/or censoring Donald Trumps social media accounts. It was then followed by removing or warning other apps, like Parler, to institute a content moderation policy or face being removed from their respective app stores. A knee jerk reaction by tech giants following the events at the U.S Capitol on the 6th of January. Pre-emptive censorship claiming that the account was inciting violence. A stretch considering the general Twittersphere and the vile tweets posted on a daily basis.
Now, many are right in stating that private platforms are under no obligations to serve any specific principles at all. In theory, they are able to moderate their platforms how they see fit and until very recently, that has never been questioned. Today, it is very warming to see people from the left and right condemn tech giants actions at censoring Donald Trumps accounts, regardless of your views on the President of the United States. It should be viewed from the position that, today it was Donald Trump, tomorrow it could be anyone. Many people think I am exaggerating but in reality, Twitters (and others) choice to censor was politically motivated. One thing is labelling tweets, the other is censoring an account. If Twitter was really concerned about accounts that incite violence, it should conduct a better investigation on accounts around the world from positions of authority and of other global movements and enforce their concerns accordingly.
Tech giants attempts to limit free speech platforms should be investigated from the perspective of monopolistic behaviour. These platforms or service providers should not have the power to limit access to other platforms of discourse, though their recent ultimatums do just that. Especially in the current climate.
Bi-partisan outrage rightly stems from a failure to apply the moderation equally across the platform. This is not a left or right issue. This is an issue surrounding our inalienable right to freedom of expression, speech and association. Rights that have been threatened with the precedent that recent actions have set. It must be made clear that censorship should never be politically charged but a result of the policies these companies have and are ready to enforce across board. This despite my view that there should be no censorship on platforms at all.
A clear example of the failings to do so are apparent with the administrations tweets during the election.
Tweets were fact checked and labelled with misinformation labels when appropriate. More recently, access was resumed when specific tweets were deleted (only then to be suspended)
Why is there no misinformation label under this one?
This is an example of many insane tweets published by the Iranian government yet they enjoy little to no accountability from Twitter (to name but one). Let us also not forget that this is a regime that enjoys a coveted spot as one of the worlds must outrageous human rights abusers. Its policies and views have a direct impact on violence, abuse and human rights infringements. Lets not forget that Twitter has been investigated for being a platform that successfully facilitated terrorist recruitment over sees. (You can find the investigation under the U.S Senate hearings 114–438)
As I mentioned earlier, I don’t expect private companies to uphold values but I expect them to be consequent. Apply the same rules to all accounts. Either support the freedom of speech or do not and apply censorship equally throughout. After all, their motto is “The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers.”
Personally, I believe that we need platforms to be a ground for sharing ideas, information and opinions freely to be debated, discussed and transferred. Censorship has never benefited anyone and in this case, has given the conspiracy theorists all the ammunition they need to believe that an elite lives behind the curtains controlling discourse. Whether thats true or not, that is more dangerous for politics then allowing the freedom of expression.
Until very recently, I have been a staunch defender of government staying out of moderating tech giants. My opinions were based on the predication that these platforms upheld certain values for all on them. Today, it’s clear that if these values are politically motivated or applied at will, its time that platforms are moderated based on their content moderation policies. They must be clear on where they stand, the actions they will take, how the censorships will be applied. Clarity is needed.
As I have argued in a previous article, it should always be the responsibility of the individual to inform themselves and act on the information they have been presented accordingly. The writer / publisher has the responsibility to accept the challenge to their opinions/comments. Both sides have to assume the responsibility that comes with the freedoms we enjoy /enjoyed.
