Free Speech on Social Media
I would like to argue that freedom of speech is an important human right that must be must protected by all members of social media platforms. I would extend the argument to include hate speech as being destructive towards our protecting of this right that allows us to communicate to millions of users daily. It is a right that could not be enjoyed without its own set of consequences. I would argue that the biggest challenge we face is in accepting that while some may seek to act in accordance to a set of universally accepted set of norms from the comfort of our own homes, some may seek to actively impede on those rights in the form of hate speech. Unfortunately, nobody can physically intercept our perhaps vicious or hurtful remarks, provided that we were vicious or hurtful in that moment, we can only try to mitigate the effects of those remarks and block the users.
It is precisely when we are protected behind avatars and usernames that we need to understand the brilliance behind the power of sharing a thought and an idea as quickly as we can, when this was not the case years ago. Social media platforms like Facebook ban hate speech and we can interpret this to be a duty to be respectful towards others. Here, we can see how new norms can be expected of us and that is to serve a function on these platforms so as to meaningfully make use of the platforms in order to fulfil our social needs.
What we essentially need to learn is how to differentiate between our own desire to be heard and to understand that to Facebook, we are merely consumers of content. Morality would come into play when we are aware that while some users can fall trap to seeds of negativity, some may actively seek to plant them. Seeds such as sharing child pornography online, for instance, can enforce a sense of immorality on platforms such as Facebook that bans it. The direct translation of seeds of hate, which can include the sharing of child pornography and hate speech have their root of origin placed behind that screen, we thus cannot expect the screen and its un-consciousness to mitigate impact, only we as humans can do that.
Baring the fragility of the human psyche, social media companies simply cannot undo the reality that an idea, at the right time and at the right place can, onto the human imagination, grow into something potentially life-changing and sometimes harmful such is the case with hate speech. Justice is served when truth is held to a higher standard and that may come from our own understanding of ourselves.
Social media platforms are simply there to fulfil a function, with buttons, with likes and comments and emojis guiding and governing interactions. We cannot ascribe any type of non-knowing, or not-acting in a space that has rules that are clearly governed by the platforms themselves. What I mean is that commercialisation and corruption, as well as hate-speech and ignorance are not really our primary concern when we engage in the sharing of thoughts and ideas through a set of modes and means such as emojis, GIFs and memes. How could they be when the rules of engagement are in the way these platforms are designed.
Hate speech can be seen as extension to freedom of speech, whereas I would argue that it is taking it for granted as important. Being right will never be more important than being just. That is why we must protect those who would want to be right at the expense of another person’s freedom to express themselves. I question the right to be right when it is exercised in a harmful and deliberate manner. Democracy has almost always been about the people exercising their own rights in order to satisfy their livelihoods and perhaps bring on a quest for a more fruitful and joyful life. I am going to use the idea of self-actualisation being a facet of democracy.
Using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a reference, a fully self actualised individual has transcended themselves, they understand that the ego and its manifestations are simply there for fulfil their survival needs. A healthy self actualised individual would want to seek a morally fulfilling life. If democracy is to extend its governing principles into the online sphere, we thus have a responsibility to act in our interest to self-actualise in this online sphere. Democracy ends when we become means, it also ends when the roots of our ignorance are in ignoring the tragic lives that have been lost to suicide due to maliciousness on platforms such as Instagram.
Expecting algorithmic media to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong would be comparable to expecting the Polar ice caps to magically restore themselves when it is human beings that are responsible for them being destroyed. My use of hyperbole may be grossly understating the potentially life-altering way that social media may have affected users who’s lives have been destroyed by the hurtful words of strangers.
Needless to say, we as human beings often see meaning when there is none, and in order to fully present our information to other users, we would have to ask about hate speech in a way that presents its full impact. When depressed teenagers are not fully equipped to handle the harmful words that strangers can say, we can try to empathise with that fact. Needless to say, some fragile individuals who have tragically killed themselves cannot represent the majority. We thus cannot bring light to the topic without giving jurisprudence where it is due and that is in representation. By shedding light into the lives of users who are maybe more innocent and perhaps less equipped for life, social media platforms such as Facebook can commit more to users and less to the idea of numbers.
