The Problem with Cyber-Neoliberalism

For the sake of this article, I’m going to use “Cyber-Neoliberalism” as a shorthand for the concept of neoliberal/libertarian freedom on the internet. That is, the idea that no company, government, or individual should limit or censor what can be/is said online. Go anywhere on social media and you will find countless individuals, especially in the West, who hold this belief. They would like to argue that because the internet is perceived as a free-market platform (for most developed nations) that their own actions and expressions online should not be limited. While in theory the free expression of ideas is an ideal that most people, no matter what your political or economic ideology is, would agree is worthwhile. However, the widespread access of the internet allows for some people to perceive this freedom of expression to be limitless, which is dangerous for a functioning “social economy”.

This is a pretty niche topic, but its an issue that arises when people in the general American politic discuss our freedoms when it concerns the First Amendment. A recent issue that has arisen in the public sphere, as it pertains to social freedom on the internet, was the move made by Twitter to begin banning “threatening accounts” as of December of 2017. This includes accounts by hate groups, extremist activists, and individuals who threaten and berate other users via the platform. The goal in mind with this decision was to limit the amount of toxicity and violent rhetoric on the service in order to make it more user-friendly.

Some outspoken individuals on the platform have suggested that this policy is a detriment to free speech, and that it abides not only by some arbitrary notion of what a “threat” is, but also that it simply goes against the First Amendment — specifically your freedom of speech. Except, that is not the case. What both extremists and laypeople commonly misunderstand is that the First Amendment applies only to the federal government creating legislation, and not an organization like Twitter, or most online organizations in general, making a policy within their company. Cyber-Neoliberals would likely argue that the internet ought to be a place where anyone, anywhere, no matter their beliefs, can share ideas. This is true, but the right to a platform (like Twitter) is not something that the internet must grant to any individual voicing an opinion. And, as I understand it, voicing opinions of violence, hatred, extremism, and other negative social phenomena are forms of speech that ought not be protected on a public platform, just as they would not be protected in a public institution like a school or a restaurant.

One consequent unforeseen (by Twitter) of this robust shift in policy is the banning of some users for the expression of comedy via the platform, and the banning/removal of some problematic posts and not others. There is a bit of inconsistency when it comes to Twitter’s policy reform, as it seems the criterion for banning is far less context-based and far more content-based; i.e. use of vulgarities, threats of violence, etc., instead of the context of the word/threat use.

Cyber-Neoliberalism is a concept that could have only recently emerged in the age of the internet, and even more recently in the trend of Liberal social normativity that has emerged and really exploded in the past decade. It is difficult for some to imagine the internet as a place which would behave like any other public institution, but we see that more and more as being the case. Certain things cannot and ought not be said on certain online platforms, and more often we are seeing companies and organizations work towards limiting the amount of ethically contentious content that is visible on their own sites.

Here’s an article about the new Twitter banning protocols:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/18/571622652/twitter-says-it-will-ban-threatening-accounts-starting-today