commit: a4daae377136e10aeac4fb651f3d27f7a6e5a703
parent 5df56b175791c00de57fe800c5e13ea350e04b4d
Author: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 11:53:30 +0100
Should private platforms engage in censorship?
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 187 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/content/blog/2023-01-30-Should-private-platforms-engage-in-censorship.md b/content/blog/2023-01-30-Should-private-platforms-engage-in-censorship.md
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+---
+title: Should private platforms engage in censorship?
+date: 2023-01-30
+---
+
+Private service providers are entitled to do business with whom they please, or
+not to. Occasionally, a platform will take advantage of this to deny service to
+a particular entity on any number of grounds, often igniting a flood of debate
+online regarding whether or not censorship in this form is just. Recently,
+CloudFlare pulled the plug on a certain forum devoted to the coordinated
+harassment of its victims. Earlier examples include the same service blocking a
+far-right imageboard, or Namecheap cancelling service for a neo-Nazi news site.
+
+In each of these cases, a private company elected to terminate service for a
+customer voluntarily, without a court order. Absent from these events was any
+democratic or judicial oversight. A private company which provides some kind of
+infrastructure for the Internet simply elected to unilaterally terminate service
+for a customer or class of customers.
+
+When private companies choose with whom they do or do not do business with, this
+is an exercise of an important freedom: [freedom of association][assoc]. Some
+companies have this right limited by regulation — for instance, utility
+companies are often required to provide power to everyone who wants it within
+their service area. Public entities are required to provide their services to
+everyone — for instance, the US postal service cannot unilaterally choose
+not to deliver your mail. However, by default, private companies are generally
+allowed to deny their services to whomever they please.[^1]
+
+[assoc]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
+
+[^1]: There are some nuances omitted here, such as the implications of the DMCA
+ "safe harbor" provisions.
+
+Are they right to?
+
+An argument is often made that, when a platform reaches a given size (e.g.
+Facebook), or takes on certain ambitions (e.g. CloudFlare), it may become large
+and entrenched enough in our society that it should self-impose a role more
+analogous to a public utility than a private company. Under such constraints,
+such a platform would choose to host any content which is not explicitly
+illegal, and defer questions over what content is appropriate to the democratic
+process. There are a number of angles from which we can examine this argument.
+
+For a start, how might we implement the scenario called for by this argument?
+Consider one option: regulation. Power companies are subject to regulations
+regarding how and with whom they do business; they must provide service to
+everyone and they are not generally allowed to shut off your heat in the cold
+depths of winter. Similarly, we could regulate digital platforms to require them
+to provide a soapbox for all legally expressible viewpoints, then utilize the
+democratic process to narrow this soapbox per society's mutually-agreed-upon
+views regarding matters such as neo-Nazi propaganda.[^2]
+
+[^2]: Arguments on other issues also call for regulating digital platforms, such
+ as addressing the impact that being binned by Google without recourse can have
+ on your quality-of-life for users who are dependent on Google's email
+ services. Some nuance is called for; I will elaborate on this in future posts.
+
+It's important when making this argument to note that regulation of this sort
+imposes obligations on private businesses which erode their own right to free
+association; radical free speech for individuals requires radical curtailing of
+free association for businesses. Private businesses are owned and staffed by
+individuals, and requiring them to allow all legal forms of content on their
+platform is itself a limitation on their freedom. The staff of a newspaper may
+not appreciate being required by law to provide space in the editorials for KKK
+members to espouse their racist philosophy, but would nevertheless be required
+to typeset such articles under such an arrangement.
+
+Another approach to addressing this argument is not to question the rights of a
+private business, but instead to question whether or not they should be allowed
+to grow to a size such that their discretion in censorship constitutes a
+disruption to society due to their scale and entrenched market position. Under
+this lens, we can suggest another government intervention that does not take the
+form of regulation, but of an application of antitrust law. With more platforms
+to choose from, we can explore more approaches to moderation and censorship, and
+depend on the market's invisible hand to lead us true.
+
+The free speech absolutist who makes similar arguments may find themselves in a
+contradiction: expanding free speech for some people (platform users) requires,
+in this scenario, curtailing freedoms for others (platform owners and staff).
+Someone in this position may concede that, while they support the rights of
+individuals, they might not offer the same rights to businesses who resemble
+utilities. The tools for implementing this worldview, however, introduce further
+contradictions when combined with the broader political profile of a typical
+free speech absolutist: calling for regulation isn't very consistent with any
+"small government" philosophy; and those who describe themselves as Libertarian
+and make either of these arguments provide me with no small amount of amusement.
+
+There is another flaw in this line of thinking which I want to highlight: the
+presumption that the democratic process can address these problems in the first
+place. Much of the legitimacy of this argument rests on the assumption that the
+ability for maligned users to litigate their grievances is not only more just,
+but also equal to the threat posed by hate speech and other concerns which are
+often the target of censorship on private platforms. I don't think that this is
+true.
+
+The democratic and judicial processes are often corrupt and inefficient. It is
+still the case that the tone of your skin has an outsized effect on the outcome
+of your court case; why shouldn't similar patterns emerge when de-platformed
+racists are given their day before a judge? Furthermore, the pace of government
+interventions are generally insufficient. Could Facebook appeal a court for the
+right to remove the Proud Boys from their platform faster than they could
+organize an attack on the US Capitol building? And can lawmakers keep up with
+innovation at a pace sufficient to address new forms and mediums for
+communicating harmful content before they're a problem?
+
+We should also question if the democratic process will lead to moral outcomes.
+Minorities are, by definition, in the minority, and a purely democratic process
+will only favor their needs subject to the will of the majority. Should the
+rights of trans people to live free of harassment be subject to the pleasure of
+the cisgendered majority?
+
+These systems, when implemented, will perform as they always have: they will
+provide disproportionately unfavorable outcomes for disadvantaged members of
+society. I am a leftist: if asked to imagine a political system which addresses
+these problems, I will first imagine sweeping reforms to our existing system,
+point out that the free market isn't, lean in favor of regulation and
+nationalization of important industries, and seek to empower the powerless
+against the powerful. It will require a lot of difficult, ongoing work to get
+there, and I imagine most this work will be done in spite of the protests of the
+typical free speech absolutist.
+
+I am in favor of these reforms, but they are decades away from completion, and
+many will disagree on the goals and their implementation. But I am also a
+pragmatic person, and when faced with the system in which we find ourselves
+today, I seek a pragmatic solution to this problem; ideally one which is not
+predicated on revolution. When faced with the question, "should private
+platforms engage in censorship?", what is the pragmatic answer?
+
+To provide such an answer, we must de-emphasize idealism in favor of an honest
+examination of the practical context within which our decision-making is done.
+Consider again the status quo: private companies are generally permitted to
+exercise their right to free association by kicking people off of their
+platforms. A pragmatic framework for making these decisions examines the context
+in which they are made. In the current political climate, this context should
+consider the threats faced by many different groups of marginalized people
+today: racism is still alive and strong, what few LGBT rights exist are being
+dismantled, and many other civil liberties are under attack.
+
+When someone (or some entity such as business) enjoys a particular freedom, the
+way they exercise it is meaningful. Inaction is a form of complicity; allowing
+hate to remain on your platform is an acknowledgement of your favor towards the
+lofty principles outlined in the arguments above *in spite of* the problems
+enumerated here and the realities faced by marginalized people today. A purely
+moral consideration thus suggests that exercising your right to free association
+in your role as a decision-maker at a business is a just response to this status
+quo.
+
+I expect the people around me (given a definition of "around me" that extends to
+the staff at businesses I patronize) to possess a moral compass which is
+compatible with my own, and to act in accordance with it; in the absence of this
+I will express my discontent by voting with my feet. However, businesses in the
+current liberal economic regime often disregard morals in favor of
+profit-oriented decision making. Therefore, in order for the typical business
+behave morally, their decision-making must exist within a context where the
+moral outcomes align with the profitable outcomes.
+
+We are seeing increasing applications of private censorship because this
+alignment is present. Businesses depend on two economic factors which are
+related to this issue: access to a pool of profitable users, and access to a
+labor pool with which to develop and maintain their profits. Businesses which
+platform bigots are increasingly finding public opinion turning against them;
+marginalized people and moderates tend to flee to less toxic spaces and staff
+members are looking to greener pastures. The free market currently rewards
+private censorship, therefore in a system wherein the free market reigns supreme
+we observe private censorship.
+
+I reject the idea that it is appropriate for businesses to sideline morality in
+favor of profit, and I don't have much faith in the free market to produce moral
+outcomes. For example, the market is responding poorly to the threat of climate
+change. However, in the case of private censorship, the incentives are aligned
+such that the outcomes we're observing match the outcomes I would expect.
+
+This is a complex topic which we have examined from many angles. In my view,
+freedom of association is just as important as freedom of speech, and its
+application to private censorship is not clearly wrong. If you view private
+censorship as an infringement of the principle of free speech, but agree that
+freedom of association is nevertheless important, we must resolve this
+contradiction. The democratic or judicial processes are an enticing and
+idealistic answer, but these are flawed processes that may not produce just
+outcomes. If I were to consider these tools to address this question, I'm going
+to present solutions from a socialist perspective which may or may not jive with
+your sensibilities.
+
+Nevertheless, the system as it exists today produces outcomes which approximate
+both rationality and justice, and I do not stand in opposition to the increased
+application of private censorship under the current system, flawed though it may
+be.
