Writing 07
What are the limits of freedom of speech on the Internet? Is online censorship a desirable good, a necessary evil, or a bad idea be avoided?
I believe that freedom of speech is a core human right that should be protected at high cost. Being able to have meaningful discussions with people of differing opinions is important, and can lead to great progress in making our world safer, richer, and more inclusive. The internet provides a platform unlike any other for ideas to be shared and discussed, and I believe it should be used to do so.
With that being said, though, I still believe companies have LIMITED a right and responsibility to how their product/platform is being used. As has been shown before, HATE speech is not protected as free speech in real life, and nor should it be online. Thoughtful, reasoned discussion should always be encouraged. Angry, senseless hatred, however, is different.
I understand that this idea is very precarious, and deciding what does or does not qualify as hate speech is a tough distinction to make. Just because someone has an extreme opinion we may not agree with doesn't mean it's inherently evil or unsafe. There must be a line somewhere, though.
I believe big social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook can and should remove content and ban users who are harmful to others. If someone really wants to say absurd things, they can take their words elsewhere that will tolerate it, or even host a site themselves.
Even more extreme of an opinion from me, though, I can't REALLY see any huge issues with big sites taking down whatever content they want. Obviously sites selectively removing mass amounts of content could hugely sway the platform and make things look a certain way, but at the end of the day, the company owns the site. If someone posts a nasty comment on an Instagram photo I post, of course I will delete, or censor that comment. It's my photo. While these companies operate on a much larger scale, I see the principle as similar in some ways.
I do not believe the government has a very big role to play in the policing of online content. I don't want to live in a country where the government works with search companies and tells them what results to prioritize and what they can or cannot show. If the company decides to impose a bias (as long as it's public), fine. There are many search engines out there I can choose from. If the government, however, comes in and dictates unilaterally what they find appropriate or not, that's where I begin to take issue.
Along with online censorship comes the issue of net neutrality. After a week of discussions in class, I still believe that a free and open internet that does not discriminate is the best one to have. While I have heard some (seemingly) compelling arguments from ISPs and those against the idea of net neutrality, I feel like any potential benefits are outweighed by the slippery slope that comes with allowing ISPs to prioritize traffic. Actions like slowing down traffic to certain sites to such a degree the site becomes more or less useless (blocked) paves that way for big internet providers to effectively censor the internet. That's going to be a big no from me.
I believe that freedom of speech is a core human right that should be protected at high cost. Being able to have meaningful discussions with people of differing opinions is important, and can lead to great progress in making our world safer, richer, and more inclusive. The internet provides a platform unlike any other for ideas to be shared and discussed, and I believe it should be used to do so.
With that being said, though, I still believe companies have LIMITED a right and responsibility to how their product/platform is being used. As has been shown before, HATE speech is not protected as free speech in real life, and nor should it be online. Thoughtful, reasoned discussion should always be encouraged. Angry, senseless hatred, however, is different.
I understand that this idea is very precarious, and deciding what does or does not qualify as hate speech is a tough distinction to make. Just because someone has an extreme opinion we may not agree with doesn't mean it's inherently evil or unsafe. There must be a line somewhere, though.
I believe big social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook can and should remove content and ban users who are harmful to others. If someone really wants to say absurd things, they can take their words elsewhere that will tolerate it, or even host a site themselves.
Even more extreme of an opinion from me, though, I can't REALLY see any huge issues with big sites taking down whatever content they want. Obviously sites selectively removing mass amounts of content could hugely sway the platform and make things look a certain way, but at the end of the day, the company owns the site. If someone posts a nasty comment on an Instagram photo I post, of course I will delete, or censor that comment. It's my photo. While these companies operate on a much larger scale, I see the principle as similar in some ways.
I do not believe the government has a very big role to play in the policing of online content. I don't want to live in a country where the government works with search companies and tells them what results to prioritize and what they can or cannot show. If the company decides to impose a bias (as long as it's public), fine. There are many search engines out there I can choose from. If the government, however, comes in and dictates unilaterally what they find appropriate or not, that's where I begin to take issue.
Along with online censorship comes the issue of net neutrality. After a week of discussions in class, I still believe that a free and open internet that does not discriminate is the best one to have. While I have heard some (seemingly) compelling arguments from ISPs and those against the idea of net neutrality, I feel like any potential benefits are outweighed by the slippery slope that comes with allowing ISPs to prioritize traffic. Actions like slowing down traffic to certain sites to such a degree the site becomes more or less useless (blocked) paves that way for big internet providers to effectively censor the internet. That's going to be a big no from me.
Comments
Post a Comment