May Monthly Debate: Censorship of Social Media

[Liberdon]

Hello all and welcome to the second rendition of the monthly debates!

April’s debate was a little slow, but hopefully this month will be better! As part of an effort to increase the debate’s length and depth, I plan to tag all participants each week with a new question to help progress the conversation.

With Elon Musk’s recent purchase of Twitter and the launch of TruthSocial, I thought a highly relevant topic would be the censorship of social media!

For the purposes of this debate, social media will refer to any mainstream social networking platform, including but not limited to Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok.

Here are some questions to consider:
-Should any censoring be allowed on social media? Why or why not?
-If so, who should have the authority to censor posts? The company that owns the social media platform, the government, or someone else entirely?
-Where does one draw the line between the expression of personal opinions and the breaking of company policies (as has been the reason for the suppression of many posts)? Is it case-sensitive? If so, how does one determine what merits punishment?

Here are the guidelines that I expect to be followed during the course of the debates:

1. No double or triple posting!  If you need to clarify or amend your post, please either wait for someone else to reply or edit your original post. If you choose to edit your post, please bold what you have added and cross out what you have deleted.

For example, suppose I said “I love cats.” If I wanted to change that to “I love dogs,” I would change it to say “I love cats dogs.”
2. Be mindful and respectful of others’ opinions. I ask that you follow standard XKI policy. I recognize that these are debates, and naturally, disagreements will arise. All that I ask is that you respectfully disagree with people and only attack their ideas, not them personally.
3. Have fun! These debates are meant to be a new way for people to exchange ideas and participate in XKI; they are not meant to be stressful or boring. They may be more serious than my regular polls, but you should still enjoy participating!

I will act as moderator of the debates, checking in every day or so to ensure that all the guidelines are being followed. In the event that a debater breaks a guideline as a first time offender, they will be issued a stern warning. If a guideline is broken for a second time, the debater will be barred from participating in the rest of the current debate and the next one. If a guideline is broken for a third time, the debater will be barred from all present and future debates and, depending on the severity of their infractions, may receive further discipline by higher authorities. After 3 months have passed, if the debater wishes to appeal to have their debate ban lifted, they may contact Liberdon.

If you have any questions, concerns, or ideas, send me a TG or PM and we’ll chat!

[Jabberwocky]

A privately owned platform can adopt whatever rules it wants. A publicly owned platform can adopt whatever rules its shareholders determine. A government owned platform may actually have to observe some ethical code.

[Flying Eagles]

Should any censoring be allowed on social media? Why or why not?
Of course. Universal free speech with slander, defamation, racism, sexism, and similar just isn't a thing. Just like there isn't a right to personally attack people in this debate, there shouldn't be on social media as I want a world where people are comfortable being on social media. I think that's a world where ideas are attacked, not people.
If so, who should have the authority to censor posts? The company that owns the social media platform, the government, or someone else entirely?
Probably the elected government should mostly control it as they are a larger group of people that can be held accountable by the people.
Where does one draw the line between the expression of personal opinions and the breaking of company policies (as has been the reason for the suppression of many posts)? Is it case-sensitive? If so, how does one determine what merits punishment?
Probably anything that is an offensive post about personal attributes that were present at birth, or calls for criminal activity, should constitute a policy violation.

[Liberdon]

Some very interesting (and different) thoughts have been voiced so far. In fact, I was still trying to wrap my head around the debate last week and couldn’t think of a new question!

But…my head has finally struck something, so here is your new toss-up question!

Should social media services be allowed to actively discriminate against violators or potential violators of their policies? (i.e. should one person be allowed to break a rule and stay on the platform, while someone else with the exact same breach of conduct is banned?)

Eager to hear your thoughts on this one!

Tagging active participants:
Flying Eagles Jabberwocky

[Jabberwocky]

Again, if the social platform is privately owned, it can establish it's own policies and determine penalties for violations. As far as discrimination, it can decide for itself what is fair. If I get banned for an infraction, and you don't, what am I going to do about it? It's a private company. They can do what they want. The worst I can do is boycott it.
If it's publicly owned or government owned, it must adhere to a whole set of rules in the interest of fairness.