In 2001 something very interesting happened that proved just how powerful social media can be. In the Philippines president Joseph Estrada was being impeached because of rampant corruption within his administration. President Estrada had many loyalists supporters in the senate though and they sought to suppress some of the evidence to prevent the impeachment from being successful. The senate forced a vote to keep the envelope sealed that contained the evidence
The public backlash was immediate. Angry Filipinos jumped on social media fearful that this corrupt politician might get off scot free. With surprising speed a massive protest was organized and implemented via millions of text messages sent out all over the country. Within a few days of the senate's vote over a million people arrived on the streets of Manila shutting down streets. Surprised and frightened by the massive public outcry the senate reversed their decision to hide the evidence and President Estrada was impeached. The president himself said that his impeachment was the fault of the "text messaging generation."
While this event shows us just how powerful of an instrument for social change that social media can be, it also illustrates why censorship of social media is so wrong. In the United States freedom of speech is considered to be so important that it is the very first amendment in the bill of rights.
In 2014 the Harvard Law Review wrote an interesting article about censorship in social media and search engines. They pointed out that private companies have become the main arbiters of what gets communicated in cyber space. Private companies like facebook and twitter use Terms of Service agreements to censor a wide range protected free speech.
“Facebook,” as Jeffrey Rosen has said, wields “more power [today] in determining who can speak . . . than any Supreme Court justice, any king or any president.” Facebook’s “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” provides: “You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.”
How facebook and other social media determine what is a violation of terms of service is often mysterious. There is no judicial determination of wrong doing. Often censors will take action without notice even keeping their actions a secret from the user. Some companies do not offer the accused any opportunity to defend them selves or any means to appeal the process.
Judgements about what is considered hateful is inconsistent, subjective, and delivered with a double standard. Facebook and twitter have been caught targeting conservative voices that are just talking politics, while at the same time ignoring Liberal violators who actually do incite violence or make hateful threats.
While the industry is dominated by companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Youtube they are not the only social media companies out there. While they continue to discriminate against conservative users, users will eventually realize that social media is a competitive market.
Social media users will eventually get tired of having all of their content shut down and they will take their business elsewhere. In much the same way that sports fans have started changing the channel because athletes are more interested in being "social justice warriors" than in playing the sport that sports fans paid to see social media users can do the same.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google may be the biggest but that doesn't mean that they are the best. Other outlets willing to grant freedom of speech to their users will find their popularity eclipsing the social media giants in the future unless they change their ways.
Comments