Deplatforming: Free Speech by Invitation Only
Equal access to social media is not just about sharing food pics or #goldenhour selfies — it’s also about ensuring the ability of free speech on the world’s biggest, most powerful platforms.
What do political conflict, violent terrorism and sexual abuse have in common?
Mention any one of them on YouTube, and you’ll face the prospect of being demonetized and deplatformed.
With a mission to “give everyone a voice and show them the world”, YouTube has emerged as the unparalleled leader in online video. As academic David Tuffley identifies, the platform is now positioned as one of the most critical informational tools of our generation for the development of political views through communicating a plurality of voices.
However, with the advent of deplatforming, the role of YouTube has metamorphosed from a public forum into a public censor, a transition I believe has devalued its social worth and contradicted its foundational purpose.
Say hello to deplatforming — it’s here to stay awhile.
Deplatforming refers to the removal of a creator’s ability to share their views on either a virtual or physical public forum. In the digital age, the term is more widely associated with removing someone from digital media when they essentially “break the rules” of the specific platform.
So, what are these golden rules? Seemingly as controversial and uncertain as the rules of the Uno card game (yes, I can pick up and put down a card in the same turn), the guidelines are continually evolving and inherently subjective to those who control the platform. However, as digital platforms have grown to be the modern public forums of society, the ‘rules’ become problematic when the platform operators begin to inhibit free and open discussion.
As legal practitioner Eric George strongly articulates, public forums, such as YouTube, refer to places that must allow individuals and organisations to exercise their right to free speech without inhibitions. Building on this perspective, political commentator Jason Richwine calls deplatforming a form of public censorship, posing an unequivocal attack on an individual’s freedom of speech.
Notably, digital media platforms are no longer passive entities for consumer-produced content — rather, they have become hegemonic organisations whose controllers have political ideologies that don’t coincide with all creators.
Who’s in charge around here?
Before the rise of social media, there was never an unfettered right to free speech. Various civil and criminal laws exist impinging upon freedom of expression in certain circumstances such as incitement to violence, unlawful threats and libel. However, these restrictions were set over time either through considered judicial or legislative processes reflecting the mores of society.
As Terry Flew identifies, the shift from traditional 20th century mass communications towards a convergent digital sphere initially created a complementary relationship between participation in the public sphere and media democratization. However, with the rise of the digital age social media behemoths and the emergence of deplatforming, it is the platform operators not the judiciary or legislators, that determine who is to be ‘silenced’ from expressing their views on the platforms.
With YouTube’s newest round of guidelines implemented in June 2019, the platform is transitioning further from its public forum roots toward a censored, controlled medium. Without the external oversight that was considered necessary to reign in traditional media power, YouTube is setting its own rules.
But, who wants trolls lurking on social media anyway?
Joan Donovan, director of Technology and Social Change Research Project, believes that deplatforming is essential to restrict extremist or hateful commentators, stating:
“…we must take away the kinds of coordinate power people are able to gain on platforms”.
And there have been instances where obnoxiously loud commentators are rightfully put on mute. American radio host Alex Jones, perhaps best known for alleging the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings were a hoax or that 9/11 is a government conspiracy, has been deplatformed on multiple occasions for his controversial, explosive statements. Perhaps his restrictions can be understood: the unwarranted harassment of the Sandy Hook families he instigated was undoubtedly insensitive and unacceptable.
However, it’s not just extremist creators affected by YouTube’s regulations — as author Nathan Cofnas argues, there is cause for major concern when politically moderate content creators are demonetised and unnecessarily censored.
For example, YouTube was sued earlier this year for alleged discriminatory conduct against LGBTQI+ videos through the form of demonetizations, viewer restrictions, and deleting videos — the kind of actions supposedly strictly reserved for content that glorifies violence, depicts graphic sexual acts or features malicious abuse.
While YouTube contends their imperfect algorithms can sometimes ‘accidentally’ impose restrictions, political commentator Michelle Malkin indicates it is the growth of intermittent, online purges and unexplained content deletions that are the hallmarks of systematic censorship.
Houston, we have a problem.
A major problem.
Espousing freedom of expression through user-generated content, it is these monolithic digital platforms that, in my opinion, now threaten freedom of expression in assuming the power to determine which views appear in the digital sphere.
YouTube can be entertaining, it can be informative, it can be a great place to post fun videos. But claiming YouTube is now a public forum that allows all competing views is like claiming Kanye West is a country singer. Instead of acting like the public forum they claim to be, YouTube’s ambiguous guidelines see them now acting as a publisher, but without the societal strictures of traditional publishers.
I believe when the most powerful sites in the world can choose to remove what you see and what you don’t without apparent and transparent reasons, they remove our fundamental freedom of speech. YouTube may afford a plurality of voices, but has assumed a monopoly of power to select whose voices are heard.
YouTube says it provides the ‘freedom to belong’, but it can no longer claim the mantle of public forum when it arrogates to itself the freedom to exclude.
