,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Reconciling Big Tech with free speech should not require breaking those companies up or micromanaging them. The regulations needed are not complicated and should not be difficult to comply with. Other industries must grapple with far worse regulatory regimes.
First and foremost, the role of these companies as editorial agencies must be formally recognized. They're not neutral platform providers any more and pretenses to the contrary are absurd.
There is nothing inherently "wrong" with editorial oversight, but we should also recognize these controls are being exercised over a form of publication that is without clear precedent in history. We shouldn't overreact to its uniqueness, but ignoring it is ridiculous.
Censorship has momentous consequences in this environment, so it must be exercised carefully and with full transparency. No shadowbans, no subtle tinkering with feeds, no "banned but we won't tell you why." Both permanent and temporary restrictions must be clearly justified.
No one should be censored for violating "rules" that are unwritten, enforced primarily by digital vigilante mobs, or highly subjective. The rules should be clearly understood by all. Clear and documented warnings should be issued before punitive action is taken.
People will inevitably disagree with the reasoning behind censorship decisions, but no one should be *surprised* by them. A reasonable system for resolving disputes must be provided. It should not be difficult to demonstrate to regulators that such systems are up and running.
It should also be necessary to demonstrate that censorship decisions are not influenced by bot networks, organized campaigns to shut people down, etc. That means the system will require more human oversight. It's definitely a sizable imposed regulatory cost but worth it.
Editorial control inevitably comes with added costs and responsibilities. Compromising free speech in any way must be undertaken with the greatest care. We should formally recognize it is a tremendous power that is highly vulnerable to abuse and resistant to competitive remedy.
On that point: it's not *impossible* to compete with Big Tech but there are enormous barriers to entry, and this industry clearly has great influence upon political discourse. We can rationally recognize these facts without overcompensating for them with a heavy hand.
And we must recognize there are global implications to the debate over Big Tech and free speech. We are moving dangerously toward a world where free speech is defined by its lowest common denominator: you're free to say only what nobody with money and influence objects to.
Combating the worldwide drift toward authoritarianism should be an American priority. At the moment, we're fighting a rear-guard action to prevent viral authoritarianism from infecting us. Only a dedicated commitment to free speech can turn the tide. /end
