The emergence of privately owned social media platforms has reshaped American speech and what should and should not exist online. While each platform—Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, LinkedIn, etc.—has been forced to filter at least some of its content, platform moderation is wildly inconsistent and often unquestioned after content is taken down.
As a result, we see seemingly uncontroversial, educational, or progressive media being taken down to protect the social media platform’s credibility and profitability, rather than protecting our basic liberties of speech, press, petition, religion and assembly—outlined in the first amendment.
Of course, limits on free speech on social media should exist to some extent; for example, speech that is not protected under the first amendment. Incitement of violence, obscenity, and fighting words, among other things, should not be tolerated on privately owned social media platforms. Twitter, however, is limiting free speech beyond what is expected—and on a selective and partisan basis.
Because Twitter does not release explicit statistics on what they moderate and what they do not moderate, claims like this one can only be investigated with anecdotal evidence. The fact Twitter isn’t compliant with releasing these statistics and complying with user’s requests, however, should be reason enough to contemplate if something fishy is going on.
The 2020 election brought attention to this issue. Republicans alleging voter fraud in tweets often had warnings made by Twitter saying “this claim about voter fraud is disputed”. Moreover, many of President Trump’s tweets regarding COVID-19 were moderated and had warnings of disinformation. Perhaps the President’s tweets are moderated disproportionally because his tweet invoke stronger emotional responses, compared to presidential elect Joe Biden or other democratic commentators.
Meanwhile, discussion on Democratic supported news, such as a New York Times article releasing President Trump’s tax returns and comments from American whistleblower Edward Snowden was not blocked—despite their contents breaking federal law. It seems that, anecdotally, Twitter selectively moderates based on accordance with the platform leadership’s political beliefs.
Regardless of partisanship, though, social media platforms using their power to silence dissent is a totalitarian approach with dangerous consequences; this should not be tolerated. With social media platforms having a monopoly on public discourse, their moderating decisions could change the outcome of political decisions as important as the presidential election.
I am not alone in thinking Twitter uses partisan and selective censorship. In fact, a poll by the Pew Research Center found 90% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats agreed that Twitter censors political figures and opinions.
I cannot with full confidence conclude Twitter is biased towards one political group or another, nor can anyone else without complete transparency from the platform. I can say, though, Twitter, along with the other social media platforms, must clarify their moderating decisions they make so that users can determine if their policies are equitable or not. Our democracy depends on it.
