Freedom of Speech, revisited
Updating the assumptions to current communications.
The freedom of expression; verbal or written is powerful. After all, that’s how we humans communicate, share knowledge, inspire, motivate, mobilize, and hold accountability. This power is what is feared but also what must be protected at all causes.
Being able to freely express yourself is equalizing beyond any other standards. It is instrumental to democratic governance.
Its potential and importance were immediately recognized in the New World and was put in as the very First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In Canada; the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ Fundamental Freedoms Section 2(b): freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
You would think that after millions of people died for our freedoms we wouldn’t need to still fight for it. But as long as power corrupts we will. There is a case however to revisit it and make sure that the protection is up to date and enforced.
I think it is important to focus on both verbal and written freedom of speech because today we spend more time writing it and reading it online. The shareability, amplification, and reach have never been greater. The days of people coming to the town square have moved, largely online. But what happens online has the ability to bring people back to the streets.
Just expressing yourself online is not enough today. There needs to be that equalization so that your message doesn’t get shadow-banned, deboosted, or disappear because of the ideological drive of the platform and its employees. We have seen that happen and that is not free speech.
There have been various discussions, legal and policy contemplations to decide on how to categorize and approach social media platforms; are they publishers or distributors? This opens the door to different sets of regulations - usually not empowering.
At the end of the day, these companies distribute people’s expressions. They have a duty to make sure that prohibited by law content isn’t shared, direct calls for violence aren’t amplified and other current ‘behaviours’ that have legal ramifications in person translate online. There needs to be strong regulation and accountability for this.
We also need strong regulations protecting freedom of expression on online platforms. Right now we have companies, their employees, and the government intervening in the freedom of expression by shadow-banning, deboosting, demonetizing, and removing content because of ideological reasons. Platforms should not be allowed to do so and intervening in freedom of expression online should come with a hefty fine.
The added twist to the equation now is that we don’t always know who is behind the communication and you can pay to amplify it. This needs to be taken with a serious calculation.
Setting trends, driving them by bots, and getting feedback by seeing the number of likes creates powerful but artificial persuasion. It is a social engineering dream come true.
How do we know that the messaging isn’t coming from a bot, a bot farm, and if it is organized to push a narrative? Bot farming and communication will only grow and their technology advancement will make online communication with them indistinguishable from humans.
Combating bots online will have to be a focal point in protecting the freedom of expression. It is best to do it sooner than later. There is a technological complexity to overcome while keeping the platforms accessible to all people with various means.
The work in this, historically new, domain is just beginning. Regulation has a place, and its place here is to make sure voices are not cancelled. Ideology should never be a censorship driver, and conversations should be between humans.