In the first part of this two series post, The Government Can’t Save You ,
I mentioned a recent Pew Research Center poll found that more Americans want the government and big tech to restrict “misinformation” online even if that means limiting individual liberties.
Many of us have heard accounts of how big tech has censored people for political purposes. If you haven’t, here’s a good introduction to that:
So, what’s the problem with big tech taking false information off of the internet? In short, if any of the current state of social media censorship concerns you, you’ve got to be out of your mind to give big tech any more power. Here’s why our tech overlords should never become the arbiters of truth on their sites:
1. Big tech is not politically neutral. Neither are its algorithms.
This is probably not a surprising statement for most of you, but you may not know how political big tech is. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey once said that he wanted to eliminate all conservative thought from the internet, Google is guilty of rigging search results for political purposes, and big tech companies constantly shadow ban and censor anyone who dares to say something the tech overlords don’t like. And when a post does not conform to the dogma of the day, Facebook and Twitter flag it, link their own “factual” take on the issue, or give viewers a trigger warning for potentially harmful material.
All of this isn’t a problem just because those on the right of center are most likely to get censored. I don’t care which way Silicon Valley leans. If they were almost all Republicans, I would be saying the same thing. The problem with a nearly ideologically monotonous group controlling information is that this dynamic fosters radicalization. Researchers have studied these effects and discovered that when everyone in a group agrees, the opinions of individuals in that group become more extreme. As a result, it’s easy to justify silencing opposing views and those who hold them because they seem so outlandish.
If their only qualifications are that they can code and create addictive products, I fail to see why our tech overlords should be the arbiters of truth, especially since they are clearly biased and don’t seem to care. We’ve got to be kidding ourselves if we think these tech overlords wouldn’t wield the power of censorship for their own ideological purposes because they’ve already used their influence in our elections.
2. Companies like Facebook are monopolies exploiting loopholes.
Despite years of elected officials’ brazen speeches about taking on big tech, very little has been done to update the laws that Facebook and others use to justify their behavior. Section 230 states that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites (the act uses the language “interactive computer service”) will not be treated as a publisher in regards to its users’ posts. This means that these platforms are not civilly liable for what other people post on their sites.
And while Section 230 does permit these platforms to take down “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” material, it’s clear that this language is intended to empower social media to take down pornographic, libelous, and potentially criminal content (i.e., violent crimes like abuse). As many of us know, big tech considers any political opinion or assertion of facts that contradict its infallible, delicate sensibilities qualifies as “otherwise objectionable” material. In this way, these sites act as publishers, but because they are technically “interactive computer services” they are not responsible for the content they do allow. Other publishers aren’t so privileged.
What’s more, big tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google are monopolistic because there is no competitive alternative since these companies corner up to 90% of their respective markets and have become conglomerates (i.e., Google owns YouTube). And when Parler started to gain popularity, big tech denied it server access and essentially shut down its competition.
So, big tech enjoys all the protections it needs from a government unwilling and unable to do anything about it, eliminates its competition, and removes any posts that don’t fit its political agenda. Still don’t think that big tech has a political agenda? Then check out this, this, this, and this. If these platforms cannot exercise the power they do have responsibly, it seems insane to give them the ability to determine what qualifies as “false information.”
3. Users need to take responsibility for making their own judgments and not relying on unaccountable companies to think for them.
Like I said when it comes to the government censoring online information, we need to stop outsourcing critical thinking. At this point, I think we all know that just because we read or watched something online doesn’t mean that that content is true. Ideas have power, so if you’re going to expose yourself to ideas online, you must learn to exercise judgment, skepticism, and take opposing viewpoints seriously. Relegating this to a group of programmers is not taking responsibility for your right to think for yourself. If you aren’t willing to do that work, don’t deny others their rights when they are willing to be responsible free-thinkers.
Some of the concern about false information online is that people are worried that others are falling prey to lies and believing conspiracy theories. I share that concern myself, and I’ve had conversations with friends and family members during which I was astounded with how naïve and misinformed they are.
The solution is not to remove ideas because some of them are bad, misleading, or even untrue because doing so will also eliminate ideas that are good, significant, and true. No one person or group has a monopoly on truth, so while our intentions may be to protect the gullible or misinformed, the result will inevitably be erasing what is actually true.
Instead, we need to have civil, productive discussions with others who think differently because we all have something to learn. And we need to learn that we are not responsible for someone else’s wrong opinions. When we all have the right to speak and think for ourselves, we reserve the right to be wrong.
In Conclusion
It’s easy to focus on the partisan aspects of online censorship and miss the bigger picture. Imagine that your ideas are the ones someone wants to silence. How should you react? What would you want the rest of us to do? Just remember, if they can do it to someone else with impunity, they can do it to you. And let’s not kid ourselves; big tech is not accountable for their actions. There is also no expectation of transparency and public service in the private sector like there is in the public sector.
The price is too high to remove all destructive, offensive, and false ideas from the internet. Not only will the truth get caught up in this overly wide net, but we won’t know why certain ideas are wrong. Nor will we be able to defeat dangerous ideas with logical, sound arguments.
Subscribe for free to get all new Modest Proposals posts hot off the press!