Common misconceptions about social media and free expression
There are many misconceptions about social media and free expression, including the claim that the former somehow entails the latter. In legal contexts, for example, the freedom of expression is what prevents a government from interfering with the right of citizens to express their ideas in public. Since social media platforms belong to private-sector entities, they’re under no legal obligation to host (or not host) anyone’s views.
In other words, the freedom of expression does not lawfully apply to social media, as legal scholar Nadine Strossen has explained.
Even so, social media platforms have become the dominant media today for communicating ideas in public. For instance, some citizen groups and government officials use social media regularly. So, there may be a pragmatic argument that the freedom of expression ought to apply to social media.
Fair enough. However, it’s important to recognize that social media platforms do not facilitate free expression—at least not in their current form. To see why not, let’s start by looking at what we mean by free expression.
Social media and free expression
The freedom of expression is not just a legal but also a philosophical concept that runs from Aristotle to John Stuart Mill. Generally, it refers to the right to openly discuss and critique ideas in public without unwarranted suppression, especially from governments or mobs. As a principle, free expression goes all the way back to the ideal of the Greek agora and Roman forum. Its purpose is to function, in part, as a public square and marketplace of ideas.
But social media don’t really facilitate a public square or marketplace of ideas to advance this freedom. Instead, the technology seems designed for practically the opposite.
Why social media aren’t designed for free expression
Consider what this technology is designed to do, which is to monetize anything and everything online through targeted advertising. Here’s how this model generally works:
- First, hijack your attention with click-bait ads, viral content, or infotainment as soon as you log on to social media.
- Next, collect as much of your personal information as possible while you scroll through endless ads and content.
- Finally, use your private data to figure out what ads or content will continue to hijack your attention and addict you to scrolling … and scrolling … and scrolling …
Perhaps not surprisingly, what tends to hijack attention and addict users to scrolling is often what’s histrionic or outrageous. Consequently, this addictive technology isn’t really designed to facilitate everybody’s freedom of expression. Instead, social media platforms are designed to manipulate users into giving disproportionate attention to the loudest, most outrageous (and sometimes extreme) voices online.
Perhaps it’s also not surprising, then, that a number of showy but uninformed celebrities and so-called influencers are often the ones who dominate much of social media. This situation is hardly conducive to a public square or marketplace of ideas, in which diverse perspectives can get together to discuss and critique ideas in an open, honest, and transparent way.
Indeed, some celebrities and ‘influencers’ may appear uniquely unqualified for such conversations, such as political arguments or policy debates. For example, research shows that celebrities or influencers may be more ideologically extreme, less willing to engage with different viewpoints and ideas, and more likely to surround themselves with yes-men.
Connecting social media and free expression is a fallacy (for now)
In sum, it’s a fallacy to claim that social media and free expression always go hand in hand—at least for now. But if we were to rethink, redesign, and regulate these platforms, we could innovate digital forms of free expression. What digital free expression would (or should) look like remains up for debate. But it certainly won’t look like social media today.
Related posts
Manipulative algorithms and addictive design
Scrolling is not relaxing – it’s more like smoking
Social media amplify outrage, among both individuals and groups