The digital world influences our everyday lives far more dramatically than it did in years past. As much as some might still lionize the internet as the epicenter of a new mode of expression where previously unspoken or forbidden ideas can now find both voice and audience, it is just as important to realize that a not-insignificant number of people could care less about what they see as the downfall of a virtual idea. For this segment of the population, online free speech is not a right needing protection but, in fact, a behavior most in need of its own supervision.
The heart of the problem is that most people have a poor understanding of just how crucial free speech is in the online domain. They see the internet as little more than a place to have a good time, to make a lot of money—to do what they want. And, for the most part, as far as the eye can see, it’s all too easy, because there isn’t “anyone around to stop them.” This is the rainbow bridge effect, or, at the very least, this is how we are portrayed by the leading intellectual stupidators of our day.
Our conception of online censorship is undergoing a transformation. As the power and influence of platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, and Reddit, have swelled, so too have the scale and competence of their content moderation efforts. These platforms and others like them can and do remove and suppress user content with an efficiency that is often breathtaking.
Tragically, this is sometimes the necessary measure to take when dealing with the kinds of violence, harassment, and, especially, the spread of extremist ideology and propaganda that we’ve seen deployed by countless “political activists” who’ve been radicalized online.
Yet we also have to ask ourselves, in this debate, how much we’re not seeing.
People’s increasing apathy toward online free speech instead seems to be fueled by a lack of understanding of the scope and seriousness of the problem. The public is either being misled or is simply ignorant of the fact that the act of censoring is not just about removing things from public view—it’s also a form of surveillance. What I mean is that the act of knowing and engaging in free speech online is now also an act of being watched, and quite possibly of being penalized for the act of engagement in the public sphere—something our society, by and large, still takes bad assumptions about upholding.
Nowadays, the increase in online censorship also implies self-censorship, where individuals stop themselves from posting potentially controversial content. Over time, this can lead to a collective chilling effect on the free and open expression of opinions. This is particularly justifiable given that many people now think of social media platforms as quasi-governmental actors. Since individuals are mainly using systems like Reddit and YouTube to get their word out, there’s not much daylight between a social media platform and an actual government from a practical standpoint.
On the whole, the current disregard for online freedom of expression is worrisome—that our society places so little value, in its push toward the digital age, on something Americans have traditionally considered a basic right worth defending. One could even speculate that the American people, so often portrayed in the media as fervent supporters of free expression, have been “socialized” to value it. After all, the American upper middle class came into power, has sustained it, and exercises that power by means of something Americans like to call “democracy.” And democracy functions only if the consent of the governed cannot be manufactured—virtually or otherwise.