Regulatory Pressure on Social Media Platforms: What About Free Speech?

Social media is the largest platform for communication today. It has gained so much popularity that there are over 5 billion social media users globally. That’s 60% of the global population!

While social media was launched for people to connect with friends and family to share personal messages, it has quickly evolved into a platform for communities to share information and ideas. Social media has even become a source of news, from quick market updates on X (formerly Twitter) to interviews of political leaders on YouTube. Did you know that over 50% of US adults said in a survey that they get news from social media? The numbers could be similar in other countries.

The fact that the younger generation is more well-informed about global issues than their counterparts in the past is all thanks to the internet and social media. While Gen X may still be sharing their holiday photos in front of historical monuments, Millennials and Gen Z are vehemently discussing issues like the environment, animal cruelty, and poverty. Can the government just sit back and let people have a free voice? Obviously not!

Comes as No Surprise

With so many people connecting and communicating without barriers, social media platforms have empowered individuals to drive social reform and, yes, even political change. This makes governments nervous, resulting in the demand for regulatory oversight.

The reaction of regulators is not surprising. Let’s dial back more than a century. Thomas Edison’s kinetoscope introduced “motion pictures” and the cinemas soon attracted large and enthusiastic audiences. Its growing popularity brought Hollywood under the regulatory scanner. After all, cinemas were becoming a medium of information and communication of ideas. So, it needed to be monitored, censored, and restricted!

Movies were restricted if they were considered “indecent” and a “threat to morality.” In 1930, the Hays Code banned American films from depicting homosexuality. Some movies have faced restrictions for depicting violence. It’s as if the audience cannot be trusted to make the right decision about whether they want to see a violent movie.

Why would social media companies expect to be treated any differently? The popularity of their platforms has drawn the attention of regulators, who have voiced their concern regarding a lack of editorial oversight.

The Pressure Intensifies

Social networks should ideally support the free exchange of information, ideas and opinions. Such free exchange is the cornerstone of democracy. Nonetheless, policymakers have been increasingly advocating for regulations to protect users against “harmful” content. Of course, the assumption remains the same – People have the intelligence to vote a government into power but lack the common sense to filter content for themselves. Therefore, the multiple instances of regulatory bodies compelling social platforms to remove content.

What is painful is that the onus of removing the “harmful” content has been placed on the social media companies. This is because of the sheer volume of content being generated and shared on their platforms. On Facebook alone, users share 4.75 billion content pieces each day. Regulatory bodies do not have the resources to monitor such vast quantities of content. Forcing social media companies to implement content filters means additional compliance costs.

Being faced with the massive volume and diversity of content, regulations are imposed vaguely and disproportionately. Most often, regulations are imposed selectively, to either suppress critics or to gain some political advantage. After all, the easiest thing for a government to do is to block all viewpoints that go against them.

Do Regulations Even Work?

Can regulations really restrict people? Take China for instance. Platforms like Instagram, Twitter and Facebook are banned. The government only allows domestic platforms like Weibo and WeChat, which are monitored and censored. The “Great Firewall of China” is a system of internet censorship and surveillance implemented by the Chinese government to control the flow of information within the country. It filters content, blocks access, and penalises users based on what the government considers misinformation and anti-state speech. So, what do people do? They use VPNs to get onto foreign platforms. People will always find a way to bypass regulations!

Have all the regulations for data protection and privacy been able to thwart cybercrime? All they have managed to do is to hamper user experience and increase compliance costs.

Instances such as these may have led Michael Abramowitz, president of Freedom House, to say, “As more aspects of our lives move online, strengthening internet freedom takes on greater importance for the protection of freedom in general. Digital repression is driving a broader democratic decline around the world, and countering it is vital to the global struggle against authoritarian rule.”

Final Thoughts

Growing regulatory oversight silences dissenting voices and inhibits free speech. Stringent government regulations can lead to self-censorship for fear of potential penalties, which crushes hopes of social or political reform.

When a government or any official agency restricts differing viewpoints, it violates the basic tenants of democracy. This violates both the commerce rights of businesses and the fundamental rights of individuals.