Preserving free expression in the modern era of digitalization necessitates a collaborative endeavor across several distinct sectors, each having unique merits and drawbacks. Here is an examination of four crucial sectors: private entities in internet services, governmental regulation and policymaking, civil society initiatives along with third-party research organizations, and media outlets, including news industries.
Social media platforms and other private internet companies are beneficial in that they allow individuals to openly express their viewpoints and participate in public discussions. The drawbacks associated with these platforms include the potential for spreading mis/disinformation, cyberbullying, and harassment, as well as privacy concerns related to personal data storage.
In our readings this week, Jack Balkin talkes about social media platofrms being the “digital public sphere” saying that, “that the public sphere created by social media in the 21st century is a successor to the public sphere created by print and broadcast media in the 20th century” (Balkin, https://knightcolumbia.org/content/how-to-regulate-and-not-regulate-social-media).
I liked this analogy and contrast of the new digital public sphere vs. the old guard. But with new territory comes new hurdles.
Implementing content moderation policies by these companies may sometimes lack consistency and fairness, resulting in unjust censorship of valid expression (First Amendment protection). Certain voices may be unintentionally suppressed via algorithms, and harmful narratives amplified by said algorithms employed for content filtering. Necessary steps must be taken to address this issue.
A solution I think would be to enact content moderation guidelines that are transparent and consistent in safeguarding freedom of expression while deterring harmful material. This will be an ongoing and nonstoping process in oder to mitigate biases and encourage diverse perspectives, increase the transparency and accountability of the algorithms.
Government and Policymaking is another sector that can be advantageous in establishing legal frameworks for protecting freedom of expression rights and holding those who violate them accountable. Through the enactment of legislation that regulates online platforms, policymakers would be allowed to uphold democratic values, however, there are some potential drawbacks.
From the readings this week, I found this interesting concerning lawmakers in other countries “Lawmakers outside the United States have experimented somewhat with setting different rules for hosting platforms depending on their size. Germany’s NetzDG, for example, holds social networks with more than two million German users to stringent content-removal timelines, as well as higher standards of public transparency” (https://www.techdirt.com/2020/09/09/if-lawmakers-dont-like-platforms-speech-rules-heres-what-they-can-do-about-it-spoiler-options-arent-great/). I think that US Lawmakers could learn from what other countries are doing in the inter-connected digital world of today.
But, I do feel that laws aimed at combating harmful speech that are too general or ambiguous may unintentionally suppress valid expressions and result in censorship and necessary measures must be taken to prevent governments from misusing their authority to stifle opposing opinions and diminish the independence of journalism. Creating concise and specific rules that balance the right to free speech and the obligation to tackle detrimental material would behoove both lawmakers and the public alike. This would help to curb excessive government power and help to shield potential whistleblowers and journalists.
Another sector to consider would be the monitoring of online discourse, exposing disinformation campaigns, and advocating for transparency and accountability undertaken by third-party researchers.
I found the page from the Meta Oversight Board interesting in that “the Board reviews Meta’s policies on a given topic and makes recommendations for how they should be changed”. (https://oversightboard.com/news/673967193790462-oversight-board-publishes-policy-advisory-opinion-on-the-sharing-of-private-residential-information/). This to me is a veyr smart idea and something all companies should be doing to get that “outside eyes” on their decisions.
I think that we should encourage cooperation between civil society organizations, researchers, and the tech companies to create efficient tactics and implement gameplans for tackling digital censorship together.
Lastly, governments and powerful tech institutions should be held accountable by the media, which also now in the digital age, fancies itself a platform for diverse voices and perspectives in its role as watchdog and as the “fourth estate”.
While investigative journalism is essential and beneficial in revealing the wrongdoings of influential individuals and institutions, it also has disadvantages as well. In the news industry, editorial independence can be undermined by a publications editor, and a lack of diverse voices can occur due to media consolidation and financial constraints put upon big media companies to turn a profit.
Press freedom faces notable menaces when government bodies, corporations, or extremist factions perpetrate attacks on journalists and media institutions (Which we have seen a lot of lately) — So, it is imperative to take appropriate measures in response. Encourage the development of communal media literacy and endorse non-profit, independent journalism endeavors (i.e. Substack) to guarantee diverse perspectives within the media sector.
At the end of the day, a collaborative effort that weighs the advantages and disadvantages inherent to each sector is necessary to uphold the fundamental right of free expression in this digital era. Addressing deficiencies and shortcomings while leveraging collective efforts will enable us to combat detrimental online content while maintaining people’s rights to self-expression.
