Social Media Censorship
Jessica Menk ‘22 Staff Writer
On October 11, widely popular social media outlets Twitter and Facebook censored an article from the New York Post concerning Hunter Biden’s emails written during President Obama’s terms. This decision caused an uproar from newspapers and users of social media. Censorship in the media has always been met with tremendous concern in the United States; in today’s society, many people get their news from social media rather than news channels, so it is a crucial topic to discuss. There are people who believe that some types of censorship in the media are acceptable, even necessary in certain situations. But that mindset raises the question: how far is too far?
Social media has become a vital part of life in today’s society, being used not only for entertainment, but also as a source of news. Teenagers and adults alike turn to social media for news, especially when it pertains to politics. People should be able to trust that when they turn to social media, sites will highlight all sides of controversial topics.
Unfortunately, Twitter and Facebook are beginning to take this right away from people by censoring political articles from credible sources. If left unchecked, this issue could snowball into something of colossal proportions, with serious implications for the future.
When discussing an issue of this magnitude, there is always the question of what should be considered a reputable news source. Reputable is defined in the dictionary as “having a good reputation.” In terms of news, this constitutes well-known, trusted newspapers and media sources. That being said, not everything that reputable sources circulate is credible. Credibility in a news source comes from the research with facts and evidence as well as the overall truth presented within individual articles. When Twitter and Facebook censor credible articles from reputable sources, that is a problem.
Upon interviewing several Howard students and staff members, they unanimously affirmed that they believed freedom of speech was essential for democracy. Given that response, the fact that social media is allowed to censor credible sources discussing important issues should be concerning for social media users nationwide.
Ember Anderson, a Howard High junior, says social media should present a balanced opinion on controversial topics “so that every person has equal access to different opinions so they can form their own opinion based on that.” Many people use what they see on social media to formulate their own opinions regarding political topics. When social media companies use their own judgement to censor what people can and cannot see, they do not allow people to be informed and discern for themselves, but instead promote limited viewpoints to their users.
Howard High staff member Mr. Douglas Kaplan said, “the way the [social media] algorithm is set up is designed in order to promote division and not unity.” Instead of bringing the country together and allowing people to talk and share ideas freely as it was intended to, social media has instead created more issues for our country; by censoring whatever they want, social media creates more division which ultimately negatively impacts our country as a whole.
Although many people agree that social media should not be allowed to censor credible articles and statements from their websites, some do not. When asked, Mr. Kaplan said that social media should “absolutely” be able to censor their websites: “They should be able to take down and put up whatever they want to, and if people don’t like it then don’t use it.” Since Twitter and Facebook are both privately owned businesses, he believes that they should be able to censor whatever and whenever they want to, regardless of whether the information is true or false, harmful or harmless. While some believe that the First Amendment protects social media because they are privately owned, the companies do have a responsibility to provide information to the general public. Therefore, if they are going to knowingly censor one side of want-to-know topics, they should be required to issue a disclaimer on their page that only one side is being presented, so people can understand the website’s bias. While Twitter offers disclaimers when information is known to be false or misleading, I do not think that this is enough. Instead of trying to find every post in need of a disclaimer, I believe that the company should issue a larger disclaimer over the whole site that would allow people to understand that the entire website is authorized to censor whatever they wish to — a much more comprehensive step than simple disclaimers.
Others believe that social media should be able to censor their websites, to an extent. Howard High teacher Mr. Greg Bulger says, “as citizens we have the right to free speech as it was intended, but I think they also have a duty to make sure what we’re getting is at least honest information,” and that “if it’s out there just strictly to be false information or confusing, to me, there's some duty to help people understand that there might be a problem with it.” In response to a question specifically about reputable political articles, he said, “I would have a hard time with just straight-up censoring the articles.” While Mr. Bulger believes that there is some reason for censorship to have a place in social media when it comes to fact checking, censoring articles from reputable sources seems to be where the line is drawn. Many others feel the same. Belle Larson, a Howard High junior, says, “I believe censorship is good for younger users in terms of inappropriate language or images but if you are registered for the account and you agreed to the terms and services, I don’t believe it should be censored.”
Larson’s response prompted further research into Twitter’s terms and services, to see if it contained anything about censorship. In Twitter’s terms and services, it states, “We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations or other intellectual property misappropriation, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment.” Nowhere in that list does it say anything about being able to remove news articles or even untrue information from their website. When someone agrees to the terms and services, they are agreeing that they can have their posts taken down under certain situations outlined in the terms and services, but none of those reasons include the censorship of an article, or even the censorship of untrue information. In fact, the terms and services also state, “All Content is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such Content. We may not monitor or control the Content posted via the Services and, we cannot take responsibility for such Content.” Not only do the terms and services not mention anything about being able to censor their sites, it clearly states that the content a person posts is their own, and Twitter cannot be held responsible for the content or monitor and control it. Facebook’s terms and services are very similar: “You may not use our Products to do or share anything: That violates these Terms, our Community Standards, and other terms and policies that apply to your use of Facebook. That is unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent. That infringes or violates someone else's rights, including their intellectual property rights. You may not upload viruses or malicious code or do anything that could disable, overburden, or impair the proper working or appearance of our Products. You may not access or collect data from our Products using automated means (without our prior permission) or attempt to access data you do not have permission to access.” Again, this states nothing about being able to remove articles from their pages. Instead, the focus is on property rights and issues that are highlighted in the community standards, which mostly ensures the privacy and safety of its users.
Social media is extremely influential to many people worldwide and is a way for them to share their opinions and ideas on a wide scale. When social media is allowed to censor reputable information provided by users of their sites, thereby preventing people from getting access to important information from credible sources, they are taking away freedoms granted to Americans in the First Amendment. Twitter and Facebook should not be allowed to limit the access of information from people without facing repercussions or issuing a more influential disclaimer on their websites. Although social media is an amazing resource that helps make life easier, we must understand the biased influences that occur on these platforms, especially as it pertains to our given freedoms.
Social media has become a vital part of life in today’s society, being used not only for entertainment, but also as a source of news. Teenagers and adults alike turn to social media for news, especially when it pertains to politics. People should be able to trust that when they turn to social media, sites will highlight all sides of controversial topics.
Unfortunately, Twitter and Facebook are beginning to take this right away from people by censoring political articles from credible sources. If left unchecked, this issue could snowball into something of colossal proportions, with serious implications for the future.
When discussing an issue of this magnitude, there is always the question of what should be considered a reputable news source. Reputable is defined in the dictionary as “having a good reputation.” In terms of news, this constitutes well-known, trusted newspapers and media sources. That being said, not everything that reputable sources circulate is credible. Credibility in a news source comes from the research with facts and evidence as well as the overall truth presented within individual articles. When Twitter and Facebook censor credible articles from reputable sources, that is a problem.
Upon interviewing several Howard students and staff members, they unanimously affirmed that they believed freedom of speech was essential for democracy. Given that response, the fact that social media is allowed to censor credible sources discussing important issues should be concerning for social media users nationwide.
Ember Anderson, a Howard High junior, says social media should present a balanced opinion on controversial topics “so that every person has equal access to different opinions so they can form their own opinion based on that.” Many people use what they see on social media to formulate their own opinions regarding political topics. When social media companies use their own judgement to censor what people can and cannot see, they do not allow people to be informed and discern for themselves, but instead promote limited viewpoints to their users.
Howard High staff member Mr. Douglas Kaplan said, “the way the [social media] algorithm is set up is designed in order to promote division and not unity.” Instead of bringing the country together and allowing people to talk and share ideas freely as it was intended to, social media has instead created more issues for our country; by censoring whatever they want, social media creates more division which ultimately negatively impacts our country as a whole.
Although many people agree that social media should not be allowed to censor credible articles and statements from their websites, some do not. When asked, Mr. Kaplan said that social media should “absolutely” be able to censor their websites: “They should be able to take down and put up whatever they want to, and if people don’t like it then don’t use it.” Since Twitter and Facebook are both privately owned businesses, he believes that they should be able to censor whatever and whenever they want to, regardless of whether the information is true or false, harmful or harmless. While some believe that the First Amendment protects social media because they are privately owned, the companies do have a responsibility to provide information to the general public. Therefore, if they are going to knowingly censor one side of want-to-know topics, they should be required to issue a disclaimer on their page that only one side is being presented, so people can understand the website’s bias. While Twitter offers disclaimers when information is known to be false or misleading, I do not think that this is enough. Instead of trying to find every post in need of a disclaimer, I believe that the company should issue a larger disclaimer over the whole site that would allow people to understand that the entire website is authorized to censor whatever they wish to — a much more comprehensive step than simple disclaimers.
Others believe that social media should be able to censor their websites, to an extent. Howard High teacher Mr. Greg Bulger says, “as citizens we have the right to free speech as it was intended, but I think they also have a duty to make sure what we’re getting is at least honest information,” and that “if it’s out there just strictly to be false information or confusing, to me, there's some duty to help people understand that there might be a problem with it.” In response to a question specifically about reputable political articles, he said, “I would have a hard time with just straight-up censoring the articles.” While Mr. Bulger believes that there is some reason for censorship to have a place in social media when it comes to fact checking, censoring articles from reputable sources seems to be where the line is drawn. Many others feel the same. Belle Larson, a Howard High junior, says, “I believe censorship is good for younger users in terms of inappropriate language or images but if you are registered for the account and you agreed to the terms and services, I don’t believe it should be censored.”
Larson’s response prompted further research into Twitter’s terms and services, to see if it contained anything about censorship. In Twitter’s terms and services, it states, “We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations or other intellectual property misappropriation, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment.” Nowhere in that list does it say anything about being able to remove news articles or even untrue information from their website. When someone agrees to the terms and services, they are agreeing that they can have their posts taken down under certain situations outlined in the terms and services, but none of those reasons include the censorship of an article, or even the censorship of untrue information. In fact, the terms and services also state, “All Content is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such Content. We may not monitor or control the Content posted via the Services and, we cannot take responsibility for such Content.” Not only do the terms and services not mention anything about being able to censor their sites, it clearly states that the content a person posts is their own, and Twitter cannot be held responsible for the content or monitor and control it. Facebook’s terms and services are very similar: “You may not use our Products to do or share anything: That violates these Terms, our Community Standards, and other terms and policies that apply to your use of Facebook. That is unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent. That infringes or violates someone else's rights, including their intellectual property rights. You may not upload viruses or malicious code or do anything that could disable, overburden, or impair the proper working or appearance of our Products. You may not access or collect data from our Products using automated means (without our prior permission) or attempt to access data you do not have permission to access.” Again, this states nothing about being able to remove articles from their pages. Instead, the focus is on property rights and issues that are highlighted in the community standards, which mostly ensures the privacy and safety of its users.
Social media is extremely influential to many people worldwide and is a way for them to share their opinions and ideas on a wide scale. When social media is allowed to censor reputable information provided by users of their sites, thereby preventing people from getting access to important information from credible sources, they are taking away freedoms granted to Americans in the First Amendment. Twitter and Facebook should not be allowed to limit the access of information from people without facing repercussions or issuing a more influential disclaimer on their websites. Although social media is an amazing resource that helps make life easier, we must understand the biased influences that occur on these platforms, especially as it pertains to our given freedoms.