Photo by Markus Winkler / Unsplash
Platform Governance and Private Regulation
Who is responsible for policing the Internet? Freedom of speech is a popular concept, but quickly runs afoul of differing opinions of all sorts. Parents want to keep the Internet appropriate for children, women and minorities want to ban sexist and racist speech, and religious conservatives want to prevent idolatry or blasphemy. In a free market economy, is there any way to regulate a giant digital market where anyone can log on instantly?
Free Speech and the Law
There are relatively few laws when it comes to the content of one’s website. Limitations of free speech include libel and slander, which are often difficult to prove. Sexual content can be illegal, as are threats. Among adults, there are few legal restrictions to speech and expression, though lots of speech is not protected. This means that speech could be considered a mitigating or aggravating factor in a criminal or civil case, with the speaker not being able to argue free speech protections. Individuals may not be directly punished for their speech in a court of law, but could lose their jobs and/or have their speech used against them as evidence of unfitness.
Censorship
In the United States, there is very little censorship of speech by the government. Censorship requires the suppression (prevention) of speech, which is relatively rare. Often, individuals are punished - socially, professionally, or legally - after they have exercised their right to free speech. Rarely is written speech censored; more often this occurs with graphic images of sexuality or extreme violence. Specific laws have been created regarding what expression the government can censor. Beyond these exceptions, speech cannot be censored by prior restraint, which means the government forbidding a publication or website from posting the content.
When someone’s content is removed from a social media website, they may cry “censorship!” This is inaccurate, as censorship only applies to government actions. Private companies, such as social media firms, have the right to ban content as they see fit. This is controversial and leads to many arguments that social media sites are politically biased against certain viewpoints, which are suppressed by algorithms or outright deletion.
Why do Private Companies Moderate Content?
If companies do not legally have to suppress content that is not limited by specific laws (obscenity or national security related), why do they do so? Economically, companies with widely-used websites, particularly social media sites, make more revenue when visitors are not confronted by speech they consider offensive. Lots of expression may be legally protected, but not conducive to commerce! Since many websites generate revenue by selling advertising space, they earn more money by drawing in the most possible visitors. Aside from niche websites, such as those devoted to adult content, most bring in more visitors when their speech is inoffensive and rather politically neutral.
To maximize profit through ad revenue, social media sites aim to keep offensive content from appearing in their feeds. AI and human moderators are employed to delete content that violates company-created standards of decency. Users of the site may post content of their choice, but can be banned if they get “flagged” - either by other users or by company moderators - too frequently. Influencers who make money from popular social media feeds may self-censor their content to prevent being banned, temporarily or permanently, for violating a social media company’s policies.
Private Enforcement vs Public Regulation
For the sake of revenue and profit maximization, the vast majority of content regulation and suppression is done by private companies and organizations rather than the government. Websites and stores want to be widely known as safe and comfortable places for commerce by all consumers. Therefore, inappropriate or hostile content from any single individual or group is not worth the scores of customers it might drive away. Sellers do not want to taint their reputation by being associated with any distasteful speech.
Similarly, most individuals limit their own speech and expression to maximize profit. In the field of sociology, the social desirability bias explains why individuals moderate their expression in public: to make more profit. Historically, the profit motive helped end racial segregation in the American South even in the absence of legislation; sit-ins during the 1950s and early 1960s convinced many companies to voluntarily end their segregated services to end financial losses. Fifty years later, many private companies publicly adopted DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies to portray themselves, both to consumers and potential employees, as positive and caring institutions to improve their public image and boost marketing.
Network Effects and Moderation Conformity
If your small business wants to become a partner or client of a giant social media conglomerate, such as buying ad space through Meta or Google or selling through Amazon, it needs to have a decent reputation. These tech giants do not want to taint their own reputations by being linked to smaller businesses known for offensive speech or content. Therefore, to benefit from the widespread networks these companies have created (the network effect), sellers must abide by certain content guidelines. Engaging in hostile or inappropriate speech could result in a seller being kicked off Amazon or a social media site, drastically limiting their sales.
Indirect Government Pressure: Contracts
While the government cannot legally force companies to police speech that is legal, they can choose not to award valuable contracts to companies that allow offensive or inappropriate content. Thus, tech giants have a major incentive to keep the government happy when it comes to the content they tolerate from their users and clients. The tech conglomerate that publicly promotes its limits on offensive content may be tacitly rewarded with long-term contracts for digital services, such as hosting government websites and providing cloud computing services. Conversely, the tech firm that adheres too strictly to “no limits on free speech” could be criticized by politicians as subjecting netizens, especially children, to offensive and inappropriate content.
Again, to maximize profit, Internet companies want to be seen as responsible stewards of the public trust. When these companies win the support of elected officials, they stand to reap billions of dollars in government contracts. Free speech is a great political philosophy, but does not always result in profit maximization.
