Censorship of Propaganda/Misinformation: Where Should the Line Be Drawn?

[Debater Slayer]

I have lately been increasingly contemplating this question: if any given private platform, such as a social media website, censors specific propaganda or misinformation, where should the line be drawn for the censorship?

Put differently, let's say I owned Facebook or Instagram and decided to censor all pro-Putin comments in order to halt Russian propaganda on the site. This would bring up a dilemma: should I also censor all comments supporting, say, the Saudi or Iranian regime? What about ones endorsing China's dictatorial social and political laws?

All of the above regimes, among many others in the world, contribute to significant suffering, loss of life, and abuse. I'm not a believer in absolute free speech--especially not on private platforms--but the questions arising around consistency and a potential slippery slope of excessive censorship have me wondering whether selective censorship is a wise idea.

When should or shouldn't a private entity censor content on its platform(s)?

Please note that this question isn't about state law or government departments (e.g., Congress). It is strictly about private entities and platforms.

 

[Orbit]

Sometimes it's best to have a person with a moral compass in charge of censorship decisions. By moral compass I mean someone who is committed to the idea of human rights. It's not a perfect system, but then again, nothing is the perfect system.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Private companies should only censor abusive behavior, imo. They have no business censoring political speech as long as it's expressed civilly. However, if they want to be censors, they need to state clearly in the rules/terms of service exactly what sort of speech and viewpoints are banned. Facebook's censorship being out of control is one of the reasons I left.

 

[Augustus]

I feel that certain social media and digital platforms need to be regulated like utilities.

Just as you shouldn't be able to cut someone from the electricity system without reason using the argument "build your own power grid if you don't like it", these platforms have too much power to be considered simply private enterprises.

Best way to think about it is imagine Google, Twitter, Facebook, Apple, etc. all started censoring your favoured political figures and boosting those you hate in order to swing an election.

Would you be ok with this? For most I'd guess not.

Censorship should have a high barrier, but it should be legally regulated not purely by the whims of private interests.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sometimes it's best to have a person with a moral compass in charge of censorship decisions. By moral compass I mean someone who is committed to the idea of human rights. It's not a perfect system, but then again, nothing is the perfect system.

I would argue, and I suspect you would as well, that anyone committed to the idea of human rights would oppose the regimes of Russia, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, among others. Considering that there are so many corrupt and abusive regimes in the world, how would someone committed to the idea of human rights handle censorship of propaganda supporting any of these regimes?

If they chose to censor all of it, that could also open a can of worms in that it would

1) force said person to decide what was or wasn't propaganda, which regimes were abusive, and which information was accurate or not, and

2) potentially drive away people believing such propaganda or (mis)information away from open, diverse platforms where their beliefs could be challenged by others to echo chambers and hive minds, such as social media websites run by pro-Putin individuals/entities.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Private companies should only censor abusive behavior, imo. They have no business censoring political speech as long as it's expressed civilly. However, if they want to be censors, they need to state clearly in the rules/terms of service exactly what sort of speech and viewpoints are banned. Facebook's censorship being out of control is one of the reasons I left.

I can see where you're coming from, but where would one draw the line between abusive behavior and support for the actions of a government like China's? I could see the line being quite blurry in some situations. For instance, would remarking that protesters deserved to be beaten by Chinese police be considered abusive behavior or not under such a paradigm?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I feel that certain social media and digital platforms need to be regulated like utilities.

Just as you shouldn't be able to cut someone from the electricity system without reason using the argument "build your own power grid if you don't like it", these platforms have too much power to be considered simply private enterprises.

Best way to think about it is imagine Google, Twitter, Facebook, Apple, etc. all started censoring your favoured political figures and boosting those you hate in order to swing an election.

Would you be ok with this? For most I'd guess not.

Censorship should have a high barrier, but it should be legally regulated not purely by the whims of private interests.

What should be the legal regulation on the censorship of such platforms? Would it be arguable that giving the government control over the boundaries of speech on social media would be handing the government too much control over media outlets?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I can see where you're coming from, but where would one draw the line between abusive behavior and support for the actions of a government like China's? I could see the line being quite blurry in some situations. For instance, would remarking that protesters deserved to be beaten by Chinese police be considered abusive behavior or not under such a paradigm?

I meant more like users abusing each other. It would depend on their policy about violent speech, I guess, which would be more the issue here than supporting the CCP.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I meant more like users abusing each other. It would depend on their policy about violent speech, I guess, which would be more the issue here than supporting the CCP.

I'm unsure myself as to how to best formulate a policy about violent speech on a large social media site like Facebook or Twitter. Potentially, that could include support for wars or regimes starting them such as Russia's, which brings up my question about selective censorship, since censoring all pro-dictatorship or pro-war propaganda from around the world could be too complicated and impractical.

Also, there's the question of whether some views could ever be considered "civil" even when couched in ostensibly civil language. An example of this would be opposition to interracial marriage, which I think is an inhumane and fundamentally uncivil view regardless of how a proponent words it.

 

[England my lionheart]

IMO there shouldn’t be a line,let anyone say what they want,let the censor be the reader or listener.

 

[Secret Chief]

IMO there shouldn’t be a line,let anyone say what they want,let the censor be the reader or listener.

Goebbels would love you.

 

[Stevicus]

I have lately been increasingly contemplating this question: if any given private platform, such as a social media website, censors specific propaganda or misinformation, where should the line be drawn for the censorship?

Put differently, let's say I owned Facebook or Instagram and decided to censor all pro-Putin comments in order to halt Russian propaganda on the site. This would bring up a dilemma: should I also censor all comments supporting, say, the Saudi or Iranian regime? What about ones endorsing China's dictatorial social and political laws?

I guess it would largely depend upon the reasoning for the decision to censor. Is it simply out of principle? That is, if a platform owner opposes a specific regime and condemns their actions, would they censor all comments of support on that basis alone?

Or is it due to fears that by allowing such views on a platform, people might become influenced and start to support such regimes in their own country? That seems to be the primary motive of censorship in countries where such things are practiced. They're afraid of such ideas spreading.

Personally, I don't feel I need anyone to act as my "nanny" to protect me from someone else's speech. Whenever someone censors something and I'm not allowed to see it, then it's as much as telling me that I'm not mature enough to be able to handle it. It's somewhat insulting and condescending to the readers/viewers, and I lose respect for those who feel the need to do such things.

I don't dispute their right to do it, but I believe their reasoning is flawed and not respectable.

I recall the Unabomber case in which he had been sending his manifesto to numerous publications which refused to publish it. After a number of years of sporadic bombings, someone actually published it. As a result, someone recognized the writing and was able to finger who the Unabomber actually was. If the publications had not been so obsessed with their right to censor, they probably could have caught the guy years sooner.

And once the manifesto was published, it didn't have that much influence or lead others into becoming Unabomber wannabes. So, their fears of what would happen if they didn't censor were totally unfounded.

Historically, censorship has rarely worked to the interests of the censors. Oftentimes it can backfire due to the "forbidden fruit" syndrome. If people are told that they're not allowed to view or read something, it will make them want to read it even more than they would otherwise.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

IMO there shouldn’t be a line,let anyone say what they want,let the censor be the reader or listener.

I generally don't believe in censorship of speech, myself.

 

[Debater Slayer]

IMO there shouldn’t be a line,let anyone say what they want,let the censor be the reader or listener.

History shows that this can be extremely harmful in a lot of situations. One of the cornerstones of the Third Reich was hate speech against "non-Aryan" people. Weighing the potential risks of censoring such speech with the risks of allowing it, I think the latter are much greater.

It seems to me that the question then becomes how to consistently apply a reasonable balance between censorship and free speech and what constitutes a reasonable balance to begin with.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I guess it would largely depend upon the reasoning for the decision to censor. Is it simply out of principle? That is, if a platform owner opposes a specific regime and condemns their actions, would they censor all comments of support on that basis alone?

Or is it due to fears that by allowing such views on a platform, people might become influenced and start to support such regimes in their own country? That seems to be the primary motive of censorship in countries where such things are practiced. They're afraid of such ideas spreading.

Personally, I don't feel I need anyone to act as my "nanny" to protect me from someone else's speech. Whenever someone censors something and I'm not allowed to see it, then it's as much as telling me that I'm not mature enough to be able to handle it. It's somewhat insulting and condescending to the readers/viewers, and I lose respect for those who feel the need to do such things.

I don't dispute their right to do it, but I believe their reasoning is flawed and not respectable.

I recall the Unabomber case in which he had been sending his manifesto to numerous publications which refused to publish it. After a number of years of sporadic bombings, someone actually published it. As a result, someone recognized the writing and was able to finger who the Unabomber actually was. If the publications had not been so obsessed with their right to censor, they probably could have caught the guy years sooner.

And once the manifesto was published, it didn't have that much influence or lead others into becoming Unabomber wannabes. So, their fears of what would happen if they didn't censor were totally unfounded.

Historically, censorship has rarely worked to the interests of the censors. Oftentimes it can backfire due to the "forbidden fruit" syndrome. If people are told that they're not allowed to view or read something, it will make them want to read it even more than they would otherwise.

How much would you say the above applied to Nazi speech in '30s and '40s Germany? In hindsight, was it wise to let Nazis freely preach their beliefs?

 

[Orbit]

Sometimes what is needed is wisdom, not rules. Messy and hard to define? Sure it is, but I know it when I see it. Censors need wisdom, and also to know when not to censor. Completely subjective, but so are most things in human affairs.

 

[sun rise]

This is a question that I can't answer because on one hand allowing lies and hate speech can lead to societies endorsing such dreck. On the other hand, such power is too easy to abuse. So there's a Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? situation: who will guard the guardians or in this case who will make sure that those who have power don't abuse it.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to stop governments and government-allied front organizations from posting obvious lies and hate speech. And along with that have reviews of policies and decisions by a neutral body.

The only thing for sure is the need for a simple, easy to understand "terms of service" which spells out what is not acceptable and how that will be judged.

 

[Revoltingest]

I allow private venues to censor as they please, eg, RF.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sometimes what is needed is wisdom, not rules. Messy and hard to define? Sure it is, but I know it when I see it. Censors need wisdom, and also to know when not to censor. Completely subjective, but so are most things in human affairs.

I think many people wouldn't hesitate to tell you that they knew what speech needed to be censored upon seeing it or that their criteria were based in wisdom. One example of this that I frequently encounter in my life is the notion that any "blasphemous" speech should be censored and even outlawed.

It is primarily the subjectivity that makes the question so complicated to answer, in my opinion.

 

[Stevicus]

How much would you say the above applied to Nazi speech in '30s and '40s Germany? In hindsight, was it wise to let Nazis freely preach their beliefs?

They didn't have free speech in Nazi Germany.

Prior to the rise of the Nazis, I think the Weimar Republic tried to silence them, but obviously unsuccessfully. But nationalism had already been a strong force in Germany for generations prior to that. So, the populace was already conditioned and predisposed to accepting and being persuaded by such speech. Even if the Nazis had been censored, I doubt it would have prevented them from rising to power.

But after the rise of the Nazis, that regime censored everything that wasn't pro-Nazi.