The Limits of Censorship: Social Media and Private Governance
Is social media like a public utility, subject to strict government regulation? Or is it a private platform with the right to edit and curate content at will? This debate centers on the nature of social media companies and their governance practices. Understanding the legal and historical definitions can shed light on these questions.
Is Social Media a Public Utility?
Some argue that social media should be treated like a public utility such as water, gas, or electricity—managed by the government for the public good. They suggest stricter regulation to ensure fair and consistent management. However, this perspective overlooks the fundamental distinction between private and public entities.
The Role of the First Amendment
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution applies to all corporations, not just individuals. Social media corporations do not have the legal authority to censor content in the manner traditionally associated with governments. The act of censorship, by definition, is reserved for governments alone.
Therefore, when we discuss social media platforms censoring content, we are talking about their editorial rights rather than censorship. Unlike government institutions, private companies such as social media platforms can choose to curate, edit, or even ban content based on their own criteria.
Private Governance of Social Media
Social media are privately owned and operated. Their owners have the inherent right to decide what content is allowed or not, and who is allowed to use these platforms. This power to govern the content and users is fundamentally different from government regulation.
While social media companies often claim to honor constitutional freedom of expression, their practices are not legally constrained by these guarantees in the same way as government institutions are. Only government and government-subsidized media are legally bound by such constraints.
Editorial Rights vs. Arbitrary Decisions
Just like traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, and publishing houses, social media platforms have editorial rights. The editors at newspapers and magazines can choose to print or censor content based on their editorial judgment. This is a long-standing practice that goes back centuries, and we often accept it without question.
When users post content on social media and it is not published, the reason can be subjective and is often not disclosed to the user. Similarly, users can be banned or their accounts deleted for reasons that may not be publicly known or disclosed. These decisions are not legally constrained and are subject to the editorial discretion of the platform.
Challenges and Owning Your Content
While social media platforms have the right to curate and edit content, they also have a responsibility to protect user rights to a certain extent. However, this protection is often limited.
For those dissatisfied with the censorship or arbitrary decisions of social media platforms, there are alternatives. Public blogs and websites, which are not private platforms with the same level of censorship rights, allow users to freely express their opinions.
Users who have been censored or banned can launch their own platforms and continue their activism or commentary. These public forums offer a more transparent and less arbitrary environment for content creation and dissemination.
Ultimately, the way social media is governed is a complex issue. While governments have the authority to regulate public utilities, social media platforms operate under a different set of rules and principles, based on private ownership and editorial rights.
Conclusion: Social media is not a public utility, and the concept of censorship as it applies to governments does not fully capture the nature of platform policies. Understanding the legal and historical context is crucial for addressing these issues.