logo

drewdevault.com

[mirror] blog and personal website of Drew DeVault git clone https://hacktivis.me/git/mirror/drewdevault.com.git
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:

Acontent/blog/2023-01-30-Should-private-platforms-engage-in-censorship.md187+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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.