Censorship or Caution

 

    Twitter, Facebook, (source: NPR) and YouTube (source: NY Times) have recently removed content that is creating a political debate.   Facebook and Twitter have limited access to a potentially damaging report that involves presidential nominee Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and YouTube has removed QAnon content from its platform. The legitimacy a truthfulness of this content is in question.  But is it for these platforms to decide, or the consumers/users to decide for themselves?

    These moves have been made with limited transparency into how these decisions are being made, and how they are being applied to all content.  These moves have resulted in politicians and even supreme court justice Thomas to issue statements asserting section 230 goes too far.

    "Section 230 grants internet platforms immunity from prosecution if a third party uploads defamatory or otherwise illegal content. For example, a blog website currently cannot be held legally liable if a third-party blogger writes a libelous post. (Such immunity does not generally apply in more extreme cases of illegal activity, such as when a website displays child pornography.)" (National Review  Oct 13th 2020)

    But the power and influence of such platforms have been noted.  The United States intelligence community issued findings that foreign actors are using these platforms to interfere with their country's affairs.   With a willingness for actors to use the platforms for nefarious purposes, and the ability of the platforms to affect a person's behavior without them being aware.

   "Relying on Facebook and Twitter to save America from misinformation or propaganda entrenches the philosophy that a handful of corporations should be given nearly absolute power over the ideas people can express in both public and private." (Verge Oct 15th 2020)

    This calls into focus the traditional news media, and how the proliferation of "news sources" and a move to online have shifted the business models to be less incentivized to fulfill the traditional role which has been described as the 4th branch of government.  This role would be to inform the public and keep Democracy healthy.  This issue is a signal of a larger systemic breakdown of a pillar of democracy that is falling on social media companies to step into, which is not what should be happening, and unfortunately, as they grow their ability to make such decisions for society only increases.