Social media platforms like Twitter, TikTok, Reddit, and Meta allow anyone to share content that includes their opinions. However, these “opinions” aren’t always accepted by these platforms, and the question is: who are they to accept or reject them? Obviously, they own the platforms, and they have their own terms of service, which users agree to and must respect.
Free speech, in my opinion, is the most quintessential principle of the Constitution because communication is the basis to what makes us human, social media is now an integral part of this communication, and I believe it should support free speech.
If platforms support free speech, they should protect opinions—not hate speech. By “hate speech,” I mean language that targets people based on who they are, including slurs. This does not include general profanity (swearing) that isn’t aimed at a particular group. I want to make it clear that I know free speech includes hate speech legally, but there’s no justification whatsoever to use that language against anyone.
If it wasn’t obvious, this is all on the basis of the United States
Now, upholding free speech takes effort through correct moderation. This includes correct screening of speech. For example, if a user on a platform is discussing the history of slavery from the 1600s to the 1800s in the United States, it shouldn’t matter how descriptive the text is; the only thing that should matter is the historical accuracy. This is why platforms like Twitter and Threads have fact-checkers. These can still be biased depending on the content, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Another example is that people should be allowed to criticize their own government, as well as the policies of other nations, without their opinions being restricted. A person can be right or wrong, but that is up to the reader’s discretion. In late 2023, after the attack on October 7th as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, several media sources and pages such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), Let's Talk Palestine, and Quds News Network had their Meta accounts either shadow-banned or removed. This included harmless content. Certain keywords were also suppressed, such as “From the River to the Sea,” “Ceasefire Now,” “Stop the Genocide,” and other similar terms. This even went as far as the simple use of the Palestinian flag emoji (🇵🇸). These are all examples of systemic censorship that can drive narratives that affect real people.
Because of how vital communication through social media is now, the power of people’s voices are in the hands of platforms, which they may choose to abuse it. The decision for a platform to overstep, whether it’s political (it’s all political) or not, sets the stage for the future of America, its people’s freedom of expression, and by extension, its democracy.