Even when justified, censorship by Big Tech is still problematic
One of the problems caused by the current political climate is that it’s particularly challenging to say “Hey, even though I understand the reasons, and even though I realize that Facebook, Twitter, Amazon etc. are private companies, I have some issues with what’s going on with the Twitter purges and the cancellation of Parler’s Amazon server hosting, and I’m worried that this course of action sets a bad precedent which we will regret later.” People want an absolute, “on Team A or on Team B” answer. If the response isn’t “this is Communism just like the CCP Virus and facemasks!” then it is taken as the opposite, as being absolute approval of the purges. There needs to be room for a thoughtful and moderate response which acknowledges the reasons for the purges, acknowledges that private companies are not the government, but also acknowledges that this is a problematic step which can have disturbing consequences — and probably won’t stop the violence.
On the one hand, the reasons for the purge are understandable and the danger is real. There is a very serious risk of further violence.
On the other hand, the World Wide Web is still a virtually infinite place. Closing down publicly accessible sites isn’t going to stop the planning, it’s only going to drive it further underground. New websites can be set up in minutes and the old-fashioned bulletin board software has many modern equivalents that can be closed to public view. I’m not giving anyone ideas by saying this that they haven’t already had and probably put into action.
On the one hand, the value of freedom of speech does go beyond the specific prohibitions in the First Amendment which do not apply to private companies. It’s a social, political and community value, not just a constitutional limitation. Shutting down an entire platform because it has been used for wrongful purposes is a dangerous step even when it is done by a private company. It is a cultural legitimization of the removal of online communities, which if done for one reason, might well be done again for another.
On the other, explicitly planning specific acts of violence would be excluded from protection even if this were government action, and planning violence should also be excluded from the value that we as a society give to our freedom of speech.
So, is action by private companies like Amazon shutting down sites like Parler really the answer to the problem? I don’t think so. I understand the reasons but I think it is a move in a dangerous direction. I know this isn’t the “this is Communism just like facemasks” answer that some would like to see, but these are my concerns.
Instead of calling the censorship by Big Tech “Communism” or “socialism,” we need to look at what checks can lawfully and properly be placed on the power of private companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon — even though that’s not as emotionally satisfying as calling it “Communism.” There is a genuine problem here, but we need to avoid implementing solutions that only worsen the problem.
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash
