Since time immemorial, freedom of speech has always been used as much for good as for ill. As human beings, we both have the ability to be good and to be bad. No one is purely evil, and no one is purely angelic. We’re all made of a little bit of both, kind of like the Yin and Yang symbol, where opposite forces complement each other. Through freedom of speech, both good things and bad things are said on a daily basis. And although deep down, we wish we could get rid of the bad, truth is, we can’t. The bad is a part of life. The bad is the price to pay for freedom. However, lately, it seems as our freedom of speech has been under growing pressure.
So who decides what is bad? Who defines “bad”? Is it common sense? Common sense for who? And what is even freedom of speech? What does it mean?
The Oxford Dictionary defines freedom of speech as “the power or right to express one’s opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty”. Amnesty International UK defines it as “the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means”. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as “the legal right to express one’s opinions freely”. And last but not least, here is what the First Amendment of the American Constitution says in regards to freedom of speech: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. From this, we can thus understand freedom of speech as our legal entitlement to express our opinions and thoughts freely without fear of persecution or censure… right?
Well, yes and no. With technology, a myriad of things got complexified: our ways to communicate, our ways to socialize, our ways to express ourselves, etcetera. To mitigate those new challenges, a set of laws and regulations had to be created. Companies like Facebook, Twitter or Google have for instance created their own policies. If your online activity on those websites happens to go against their policies, your ability to use those platforms to express yourself can be restricted, limited, or worse even, you could be banned from using them, like former U.S. President Donald J. Trump banned from Twitter earlier this year. Whilst most of us might think from a legal perspective, social media firms rather see things from a contractual perspective. When we users tick the T&C box, we give the company our consent and our understanding of their policies, it’s like signing a contract, and we accept the potential repercussions if we violate one of the contract’s conditions. For big social media groups like Facebook, it’s a win-win. On one hand, they’re not responsible for what you say on their website since they’re just hosting you on it, but on the other hand, they can reprimand you if your activity goes against their taste, or worse, their agenda. And even though some might frown upon reading the word “agenda”, denying its existence is ignoring past events such as the 2018 Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, which showed us social media users how social media companies together with big data groups neither have our backs nor care about morality, but instead care about their ability to make profit on their users’ backs.
Another concerning side of the topic is the so-called “war on disinformation”. Despite the concept sounding great and promising, the reality is else. Earlier this year, Microsoft announced teaming-up with other big tech companies to “create standards group aimed at building trust in online content” (dixit Microsoft News Center), their aim being to “address the prevalence of disinformation, misinformation and online content fraud through developing technical standards for certifying the source and history or provenance of media content” (ibid). The danger arising from this is big tech becoming the information-police without anyone policing them. In other words: Big Brother. The sadder part of the story is that the game’s already afoot. For about two years now, we’ve witnessed a change in our ability to speak our minds on platforms like Instagram, YouTube, or Twitter, with measures as mild as an information section being added to any post concerning the current sanitary crisis, to more drastic measures like entire pages being shadowbanned or shut down for merely expressing an opinion.
Whilst the concept of disinformation remains bad per se, it is also worth noting that in an era where information proliferates as much online as in real life, deciding who is lying is becoming more and more difficult. Moreover, instead of investigating themselves, a growing percentage of the population seems rather comfortable with the idea of big tech doing the investigation for them. “Why shouldn’t we be?” Well, because we have enough examples to learn from.
One of the most controversial topics of the moment is irrefutably the current health crisis. Between what we learn from the news, to the so-called “conspiracy theories” we encounter online, how do we know who’s lying and who’s saying the truth? “Listen to the scientists!” some say. Okay, which ones then? Scientist are now more divided than ever when it comes to this topic – from the genetic makeup of the superstar pathogen of the moment, to the ways in which governments should tackle the situation. So which scientists exactly should we listen to? The ones on television? If so, why those ones? What makes them more trustworthy? Does television give us the guarantee for truth? I think we have sufficient examples to deny that.
Whilst looking for the truth becomes harder than finding a needle in a haystack, big tech is gaining the upper hand in the game of online credibility, making it harder and harder for smaller independent organizations to have their voices heard. In such a fashion, the narrative is progressively narrowed to a version of the story which is convenient only for big tech and not for its users. In the meantime, people who have the misfortune and the bravery to speak their mind in a way which big tech groups don’t like are being removed their right to exercise their freedom of speech on certain platforms. They get labeled as “conspiracy-theorists”, they get ridiculed, discredited and cancelled by the general public. As much as we claim hating cancel culture, we are the very people who enforce it.
Aude Calloch 