1

Kenneth Ao
CST 300 Writing Lab
September 20, 2022

Free Speech on Social Media Platforms

As the internet continues to grow, most people agree that the internet has become a

normal human right. Since most people also believe that everyone has the right to free speech,

online censorship has become an issue on many social media platforms because it leads to

internet governance. Some feel that it is fine to suspend or ban people who are controversial,

while others believe that nobody should ever be censored online.

Introduction/Background

According to “Most Popular Social Media Networks In The World,” written by Ronaldo

Y. Wee in 2017, nine out of ten of the largest social media companies today are based in the

United States of America. Since America is often seen as the leader in freedom and democracy,

it is assumed that American companies would uphold the same values as its country. Therefore

the social media companies are expected to protect the freedom of speech, which has been

declared a human right that every person is born with. People should be allowed to speak freely

on social media platforms without fear of repercussions.

By protecting freedom of speech, internet openness is also fostered because it prevents

the internet from being governed in a top down manner. Ideally, the government and large

organizations should not be allowed to regulate the internet, allowing the internet to expand

freely. Any infringement of this belief can be a slippery slope that allows more groups to begin

placing stricter controls over the internet.

Since social media companies are private entities, they should be allowed to have

complete control over their own product. Most of the time this materializes as content
 2

moderation that removes inappropriate content that can be offensive or upsetting to users. For

example, posts or images that encourage terrorism, violence, and drug abuse are removed as

soon as possible. People generally agree that these ideas are dangerous for society and should be

deleted from public view to prevent spread among other users. Issues in content moderation

begin to arise when people do not agree about what should be allowed on social media platforms.

One of the main events that accentuated the issue of social media censorship to the public

was the 2016 election in the United States. During this election Facebook, the largest social

media platform in the world, was criticized for not regulating the disbursement of fake news

enough, and for having an algorithm that “places users in polarized filter bubbles” (Solon, 2016)

that affected the outcome of the election (Solon, 2016). People began to realize that the social

media platforms that they shared their information on were not always going to hold the same

beliefs as them. The companies could freely remove and reduce the spread of any news,

infringing on the values of freedom of speech and increasing internet governance.

Stakeholder Analysis

The two stakeholders on the issue of social media censorship are the people who support

censorship of certain ideas, and the people who do not want any form of censorship at all. Both

sides agree that there are harmful ideas and content that are shared online, but disagree on the

role that the social media companies should play when it comes to regulation.

Stakeholder 1

The groups who support social media censorship are the social media companies

themselves, and the individuals who want to defend their own ideologies while disrupting

opposing viewpoints. Both groups want the social media companies to have power over their

own platform because it would benefit their own goals, whether it is financial or ideological.
 3

Social media companies are private entities whose ultimate goal is to increase profits and

to expand their reach on users. Their main source of income consists largely of selling

advertisements and selling user generated data that are used to improve advertisements. For

example “Facebook Ad Revenue is $28.2 billion in Q3 of 2021” (Bagadiya, n.d.). As a result, the

companies will often moderate posted content to cultivate a comfortable environment that will

encourage users to begin using and continuously return to their product. This would increase the

number of people who will see the advertisements, causing businesses to purchase more time and

space on the platform. The social media company would also be able to collect and sell more

data from its growing user base. It would be a greater utility for the corporations to acquire more

profit than it is to lose revenue.

The people who support social media censorship value the happiness of the general

population. They accept that the companies have the ability and the right to moderate the content

on their platforms because it would be beneficial for society. Most people who are using social

media can express their own ideas and see other opinions instantly, allowing users to influence

users all around the world. This becomes an issue when people believe that the opposing view is

being promoted and becoming more popular among other groups. When these ideas are allowed

to stay on the platform and able to be spread, more people will find the posts and begin to adopt

the ideas themselves. With a larger population, the opposing groups could then influence the

laws and social practices, which would negatively affect everyone in society. Therefore the

posts and users who posted the offensive content should be removed from social media platforms

in order to prevent adverse changes.

The groups that want to continue censoring social media use claims of policy to support

their own position. In their opinion, harmful content will always be posted on social media
 4

platforms. By taking action and removing the content, users will gain a better experience because

they are not seeing offensive material and the dangerous ideas will not be spread into mainstream

culture. The company will increase in utility because they receive more revenue.

Stakeholder 2

Although social media companies have the authority to block content and ban or suspend

users from their platform, some groups argue that this ability is unfair and violates human rights.

The group of people who are against any form of censorship on social media value the right to

free speech and less internet governance. To the people who believe in this position, the internet

has become a public forum where anyone can express their ideas openly. Since the most popular

social media platforms were founded by American companies, deleting any posts, banning and

suspending accounts violates the users’ freedom of speech. If this right is protected outside of the

internet, it should also be protected on the internet. Giving these companies the power to censor

its users has also increased internet governance because the company can now remove anything

they deem offensive, whether users agree or not. Therefore, social media companies should not

be allowed to censor any of the content posted on their platforms.

The people who want to prevent any form of censorship on social media support their

position using claims of value. The companies, who moderate the content being posted, should

understand that denying the freedom of speech is immoral and should always be avoided.

Western culture was formed based on this idea, and should be upheld no matter the

circumstances.

Argument Question

Online censorship is a constant issue that seems to fluctuate in support depending on

current events. The question that is being argued is “Should social media companies be allowed
 5

to censor user posted content?” Since there are advantages and disadvantages to the opposing

sides, the issue will always be debated among social media companies and its users.

Stakeholder Argument

Stakeholder 1

The internet is widely used by people to find new information. Since the internet has

permeated into every aspect of life, people can learn about anything through the internet, such as

how to change a tire or opposing political views. Some people argue that the content being

posted by other users can be innately harmful because the ideas can be incorrect or promote

violence. Therefore, these people believe that the social media companies have the ability and

the responsibility to censor dangerous content. The private companies have the right to regulate

their own product however they see fit because they are headquartered in a Capitalist country.

and users have agreed to the companies’ terms of services. Although censoring the content may

be violating users’ rights to freedom of speech, it is overall beneficial to the online community

and to society as a whole.

The idea that the censorship is being used in a productive manner relates to the ethical

framework of Utilitarianism. According to “The History of Utilitarianism,” by Julia Driver

(2009), Utilitarianism is “held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that

produces the most good.” The idea has historically been discussed, but was fully articulated in

the nineteenth century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (Driver, 2009). These two

Classical Utilitarians used the ideas of the framework as a critical tool in order to create legal and

social reform by changing social practices and corrupt laws. Utilitarianism would be used to

analyze the utility and effects of laws, and whether the laws produced any good in society.

Another philosopher discussed by Julia Driver (2009) is Henry Sidgwick, who is “one of the
 6

most well known works in utilitarian moral philosophy” (Driver, 2009). He believed that people

should not only strive for greater utility, but also “maximize the product of the number of

persons who are currently alive and the amount of average happiness” (Driver, 2009).

The group of people who support censorship of certain ideas on social media base their

argument on the tenets of utilitarianism. They see that the general purpose of content moderation

is to remove ideologies that are potentially detrimental to society. They postulate that if those

ideologies are spread, society will begin to adopt unethical social practices and corrupt laws that

will lead to a decrease in people’s product and average happiness. The people who are banned or

suspended may lose some of their rights, but it is outweighed by the increase in happiness for

everyone else.

Censorship is usually seen as the correct course of action because the stakeholder

believes that their side is good and the opposing side is bad. If the bad side is given a chance to

be spread online, more bad actions will be taken in real life which will create more unhappiness

in society. Therefore by preventing dangerous ideology from being discussed, there will be more

happiness in the world.

The goal of online censorship is to create a better society through reducing the amount of

people who believe in the wrong ideologies. If successful, society will have better laws and

social norms that benefit a large portion of the population and increase general happiness. On the

other hand, if the wrong ideas are allowed to flourish unrestricted, most people will become

unhappy from the poor conditions they are forced to live in. The stakeholder wants to continue

censorship of the wrong viewpoints in order to create a better life for themselves and for

everyone in the future.

Stakeholder 2
 7

Social media has become the main tool of communication for many people around the

world. Any form of censorship would prevent users from freely expressing their ideas because of

the possible retaliation against them. People who do not support deleting content and banning or

suspending accounts believe that the social media companies should protect human rights instead

of destroying them. It is the organizations’ responsibility to give its users an open and

unrestricted space to communicate and spread information. The consequences of the decisions

from this argument can potentially result in the loss of freedoms online. The companies would

have supreme authority over the distribution of any information even if it is incorrect.

The stakeholders who disapprove of online censorship argue using the ethical framework

of virtue ethics. This framework was founded by Plato and Aristotle in the West, and Mencius

and Confucius in the East (Hurthouse et al. 2003). They believed that having virtue will cause a

person to make the correct choices for the correct reasons. An example given is that an honest

person will choose to do something because it is honest, not because other actions would make

them dishonest or fear the consequences of being dishonest. This means that the reasons and

choices a person makes reflect on their character.

The ideas of virtue ethics are used in the argument of censorship by applying to the social

media companies and to the users themselves. The companies are American companies and have

a Western culture, therefore they understand the right to freedom of expression. The workers are

able to take advantage of this right every day and should feel a moral obligation to create an

environment where people can speak freely. The workers should be able to make this distinction

between right and wrong, and choose to do the morally proper action.

Virtue ethics can also be applied to the users who are actively choosing what they want to

post or read online. As a person with good character traits, a user should be able to recognize
 8

whether the content they are interacting with is harmful to themselves and all of society. If it is a

negative idea, the user should be able to ignore the content and avoid spreading it because their

virtue would stop them from acting out of character.

Student Position

As a person who uses the internet, I feel that I have the experience to weigh in on the

argument of whether social media companies should be allowed to moderate content. My

position aligns with the stakeholders who believe that censorship should be allowed on social

media. I do believe in freedom of speech but users have agreed to certain terms of service and

are using a private entity’s product. The companies should have the final decision on what topics

are allowed and what should be removed from their own platform. If the users do not agree with

the company, they can stop using the product completely.

This issue can be resolved by creating more social media companies that are good enough

to compete with the current large technology companies. If a person does not believe that there

should be any form of censorship, they can create their own company that will allow anything

they want on there. This would be the best course of action because it would bring more

competition to the market while promoting free speech. If the company is successful then other

people will have a better alternative to unrestricted communication. The people who value their

freedom of speech will migrate to that platform, avoiding some of the issues that occur when a

user is banned or suspended or has their content removed.

 9

References

Bagadiya, J. (n.d.). 430+ Social Media Statistics You Must Know in 2022. SocialPilot.

Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://www.socialpilot.co/blog/social-media-statistics

Byrd, G. (n.d.). Does Freedom of Speech Exist - Emerging Media. Loyola University

Maryland. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from

https://www.loyola.edu/academics/emerging-media/blog/2016/freedom-of-speech-on-

social-media

Driver, J. (2009, March 27). The History of Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Edelman, G. (2021, April 27). On Social Media, American-Style Free Speech Is Dead.

WIRED. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.wired.com/story/on-social-

media-american-style-free-speech-is-dead/

Edelman, V., & Ruan, K. (2021, June 15). The Problem With Censoring Political Speech

Online – Including Trump's. ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-problem-

with-censoring-political-speech-online-including-trumps

Hursthouse, R., & Pettigrove, G. (2003, July 18). Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia

of Philosophy). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September 26, 2022,

from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

KEATING, D. (2022, August 3). To Protect Free Speech, Social Media Platforms Must

Stop their Overreach. The Ripon Society. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from

https://riponsociety.org/article/to-protect-free-speech-social-media-platforms-must-stop-

their-overreach/
 10

Reed, K. (2020, November 5). Social media platforms implement aggressive censorship

during the 2020 US elections. WSWS. Retrieved September 27, 2022, from

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/06/cens-n06.html

Solon, O. (2016, December 12). 2016: the year Facebook became the bad guy | Facebook.

The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/12/facebook-2016-

problems-fake-news-censorship

Vogels, E. A., Perrin, A., & Anderson, M. (2020, August 19). Most Americans Think

Social Media Sites Censor Political Viewpoints. Pew Research Center. Retrieved

September 26, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/08/19/most-

americans-think-social-media-sites-censor-political-viewpoints/

Wee, R. Y. (2017, April 25). Most Popular Social Media Networks In The World. World

Atlas. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-

popular-social-media-networks-in-the-world.html