Pew Research’s “Social Media and the Spiral of Silence” survey, published three days ago, is generating considerable discussion online about why a supposedly free, open means of communication such as the internet is fast becoming a place where users are censoring themselves by refusing to talk about anything where they might be in the minority or that might upset others.

The trend is familiar to me: anybody who has spent time sharing information on a social network understands the dynamic, and that self-censorship alive and well: as one’s perceived or real audience grows, the amount of information about ourselves that we are prepared to share diminishes. Does this mean that the dream of a free internet where we all can share whatever information we want is gone?

Not so fast. The principle is clear enough: when addressing a small group of people or having dinner with a friend, it is relatively easy to talk about the things that matter to us, and that define who we are. But in the case of Facebook, where in theory we are in contact only with friends and family, we already tend to be more circumspect, aware that there is a potentially larger number of people than we at first approved looking at what we write. When it comes to Twitter, or any other global network, we are even less inclined to share personal information, unless of course we’re acting anonymously. As the number of people we talk to grows, we are less able to control the possible effects of what we say, and the space we dedicate to personal matters is more restricted. It’s pretty much survival and Psychology 101.

What’s more, another variable comes into play: context. When we are sharing the same space with other people, we can qualify what we say, explain it, and use gestures, tones of voice that can help overcome misunderstandings or provide nuance. We feel in control of what we are saying, at least in terms of the final impression that we want to create. But if outsiders come into the group, then we automatically seem to feel the need to restrict what we say.

Extend this to the social networks and this tendency increases, because even though we are able to qualify what we say, any subsequent comment will always be removed from the original context, and the central idea has been expressed in its most basic form, leaving us with the feeling that we may be judged on something that has been taken out of context.

Self-censorship is quite simply a characteristic of the social networks. My behavior on Twitter is not the same now, with almost 200,000 followers, as when I had 200, and the reason is simply one of survival. The fewer people I am talking to, and the better I know them, the less I have to explain myself in detail, just to make sure that there is no chance of any misunderstanding; I can assume that some throwaway comment will not be forever associated with me. From the comfort of my living room I can swear that if I ever meet up with the referee of the soccer game I am watching I will rip his liver out and eat it raw, and everybody present will understand that I am speaking metaphorically. If I make the same comment on Twitter to 200,000 people, things change, and the referee himself may even bring charges against me for threatening behavior.

This doesn’t mean that nobody dares to express minority views on the social networks. What tends to happen is that we apply filters: before saying something in public, we sound out our friends and family. In my case, I have been saying for as long as I have been writing online that what I say is subject to a change of opinion, that I am merely expressing ideas that might develop into something else, or that they are refined by other people’s comments, and that as an academic my page is simply a workshop for ideas and arguments that I will use in class or at conferences. Over time, I have begun to see my role on my page as similar to that in class: to generate discussion and to encourage the exchange of ideas and information, and that everybody participating will benefit. My goal is rarely to establish some kind of absolute truth, and you could even say that mine is a Buddhist approach wherein “the answers are to be found on the journey rather than at one’s destination.”

Do the social networks discourage us from sharing our opinions and participating in debate? Nobody wants to be called a gatemouth, and so we tend to apply a certain degree of self-censorship when taking part in online discussions, that is not so much a problem to do with the internet as common sense. At the same time, the internet has its own security mechanisms: on the one hand, the centrality that in some cases comes from social metrics, and that means that when somebody comments on a subject that they are already associated with, their opinion tends to be sought out in relation to similar topics.

At the same time, anonymity, which not only helps when behaving badly, does help to express ideas that we might not want anybody to associate us with. My experience of online debates is a mixture of the two: people asserting their authority along the lines of: “given that I am such and such, you should listen to me”, or “as you don’t know who I am, I can counter your argument in a way I couldn’t if you knew me.” I think both positions are valid, and on my website it is possible to make anonymous contributions: it is very easy to remove insulting or offensive comments.

Self-censorship is a form of self-defense; it’s part of the social contract. All that internet and the social networks are doing is giving us the chance to reach out to a large audience than we would normally be able to talk to. Would it really be such a good idea for us to talk to those audiences without applying a little self-censorship?

I think not. The larger the audience, the greater the degree of self-censorship: talk about what you know, and that you can provide good arguments to back up, or keep quiet. And if you must talk, then try to avoid making categorical statements, bearing in mind that the size of your audience and the absence of an additional context could end up labeling you for life. Although what tends to happen online is that the most productive forums are those where people censor themselves when they are not entirely sure about the topic under discussion, while those that allow everybody to comment tend to turn into shouting matches.

Self censorship on the internet? Hmmm. As developers like to say, I think it’s more a case of… “it’s not a bug… its an undocumented feature”