The Dangers of Social Media Censorship

By MIRIAM ZUO ‘20

While an opinion cannot be proven right or wrong, misconceptions are created by the incorrect interpretation or outright rejection of verified principles, typically stemming from ignorance. The longer a person receives misinformation, the harder it is for them to accept an alternative view, even if the view is based on fact. Especially when a community of like-minded believers exists, those who hold onto flawed opinions feel validated by comrades who both commiserate constant, universal criticism of such opinions and share such views rally to a collective dismissal of corroborated fact. Thus, fundamental misconceptions on issues such as women’s rights and sexuality are perpetuated by the ignorant, resulting in hate speech, much of which ends up online. But, regardless of the origin of offensive ideas, seeing this hate on mainstream platforms such as Instagram and Facebook is shocking, upsetting, and potentially triggering. Hate speech on social media begs the question of whether the sites should censor harmful posts for the sake of pleasing the general public.

Currently, social media sites respond largely in the same manner: for example, Facebook detects hate speech through AI, human reviewers, and user reports, and then moves to delete posts and/or ban users. These censorship efforts, as well as public backlash, increase if an act of hate is committed in the real world by a person who had expressed their beliefs on Facebook. Social media sites ban users they consider to be a threat to both security and their company image—people will complain if hate speech constantly pops up in their timeline. However, in search of social media sites where they can freely express their misconceptions, the banned users are increasingly migrating to far-right and unregulated platforms. The problem is that users of these platforms find a community that supports them. Isolated from the greater community and ignorant of opposing views, they, driven by their conviction in their own deeply flawed beliefs that only grow stronger, sometimes commit horrific actions. Last summer’s white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, VA, was planned on Discord servers, a group chat app. More recently, the devastating shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA, was committed by an openly anti-Semitic user on “Gab,” a social media site known for its socially conservative/alt right leanings and user base of people who have been banned from more mainstream platforms.

Though alternative social media sites distance us from offensive and hateful misconceptions, they serve as safe spaces that their users do not deserve,  and ask a high price from society, one we cannot afford. The grotesque solidarity between site users who aggressively subscribe to misconceptions--Flat Earthers, climate change deniers, racists, etc.—drives an ever-growing wedge between them and the possibility of reconcilement with facts and the rest of society. Their internalized misconceptions are divisive and pose as a threat if acted upon to the extreme. On mainstream platforms, problematic misconceptions are constantly argued against. Though people who believe in those misconceptions stubbornly hold onto them, partly due to support from sources such as Breitbart and pseudoscience, efforts from the larger community to challenge their views are critical in the effort to prevent the normalization of them. The greatest concern associated with the visibility of offensive ideas in mainstream social media is the triggering effect it may have on people who accidentally stumble upon it. This issue needs further discussion, especially among social media management, but there need to be trigger warnings on offensive posts so that social media users have some control over the content they see.

Censorship has its place in the online world on a case-by-case basis, but in regards to users with strong misconceptions, censorship does essentially nothing, as users will continue to express themselves on alternative platforms.  However, on those platforms, they are supported by like-minded people, and their misconceptions will become more entrenched. There is immense value in interactions between people of opposing views: even though misconceptions are usually offensive, their exposure is preferable to their erasure.