In today’s world, free speech relies on many participants, including social media platforms, governments, civil society, and news media. Each type of participant brings different strengths and dangers. Social media platforms provide individuals with tools that allow them to connect with many people with minimal cost. Social media also democratizes expression. An individual in a distant town can express their views, which will be heard by people all over the world. Social media provides marginalized voices with platforms, regardless of whether mainstream media acknowledges them. However, such platforms also have downsides. They dictate terms, defining what qualifies as acceptable speech, what gets downgraded or deleted, or gets promoted. What drives them is engagement or advertising revenue, not free speech.
Moderation tools and recommendation algorithms must be designed with transparency, fairness, and minimal bias. They must not discriminate in favor of content that receives more clicks or sparks outraged reactions. Social platforms must realize that, beyond being technology companies, they must also provide a public speech infrastructure.
They must avoid being distracted by engagement metrics (for example, likes or shares) that lead them to think that measures value or importance. They should also monitor self-censorship. Users might refrain from expressing their views if the moderation terms appear aggressive.
Governments and legislatures must guarantee the right of free expression through legislation. By enforcing the right to free speech as defined in the constitution/laws, governments establish a minimum standard that others must follow. Governments must prevent negative consequences such as threats, harassment, defamation, and so forth. However, there are risks associated with government regulation as well. Politicians may use the disguise of ‘safety,’ ‘security,’ or ‘public order’ to justify laws that are vague or overly broad, which can harm free speech. Government regulation of online platforms may also amount to censorship. To protect expression, policymakers must pass carefully drafted statutes. Rules would need to specifically identify harmful activity (for example, incitement or threats), while avoiding targeting unpopular views.
Non-profits, advocacy organizations, researchers, and individuals comprise civil society. Such parties can monitor abuses, track censorship, highlight injustices, and amplify the voices of those silenced. Scholars can examine moderation practices, discrimination, and instances of harassment or the spread of misinformation, producing public-interest data that corporations or states may disregard. The value that journalists offer is their independence and integrity. They do not face the same commercial pressures that a platform must operate under. However, there is also a threat to civil society. They might disregard, distort, or appropriate their results. Advocacy organizations may begin with preferences for some ideological views. To better secure the realm of free expression, the world of civil society must demonstrate its integrity through transparency, sound methodology, and openness regarding funding sources. Social researchers must obtain informed consent and keep private information private.
Traditional media such as newspapers, TV, magazines, and online news sources play a critical role in free speech, public dialogue, and accountability of those in power. In-depth reporting, opinion writing, and analysis offer a necessary perspective on complex ideas that may not be captured. The media industry faces commercial pressures, including advertising revenue, sensational news, clickbait, and competition from social platforms. Rushing for speed may result in inaccuracies. To ensure that freedom of expression remains secure, the news industry must focus on fact-checking, source diversity, and opportunities for marginalized voices. News media must avoid propagating extreme views merely because they generate engaged audiences.
Amnesty International. (2021, June). #Toxictwitter: Violence and abuse against women online - Amnesty International. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act30/8070/2018/en/
Benavidez, N., & Tager, J. (2024, July). Arresting Dissent. PEN America. https://pen.org/report/arresting-dissent/
McKinney, I. (2018, April 26). Platform Censorship Won’t Fix the Internet. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/platform-censorship-wont-fix-internet