Social Media Censorship | Tech Industry Crackdown
August 29, 2018
EMAIL AND TECHNOLOGY
Tech Industry Crackdown After Charlottesville
While the topic of social media censorship has been in the news lately, thanks to increased public attention on the privacy practices of Facebook, another aspect showing the complex issues involved with digital privacy started gaining momentum last year after an attack by far-right extremists. The rise of white nationalists in recent years has gone hand in hand with the nation’s increasing reliance on digital and social media, with troubling results that paint an unclear picture of the future of Internet privacy.
The issue came to a head last summer with a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., which resulted in the death of a counter-protestor. The rally was largely organized online, and, in light of the tragedy that ensued, many tech companies began reexamining their policies toward hate speech. Following the Charlottesville incident, nearly a dozen big-name tech companies revamped their approaches to how they work with users who promote extreme hate speech. For instance, both Google and GoDaddy severed ties with a white nationalist group that sought their hosting services. Music-streaming company Spotify ejected bands promoting violence from their platform, while GoFundMe shut down a fundraiser for the man accused of killing the counter-protestor. Both PayPal and Apple Pay also cut off white nationalist groups from using their sites to support funding. Facebook banned accounts of individual users who participated in the rally, while Twitter took a broader approach by banning certain groups; they came under fire by those claiming they practiced social media censorship, but both stood by the policies.
The changes that were ushered in by the Charlottesville incident reflect a new phase of the digital privacy debate. In the past, tech companies were largely hesitant to take a hardline approach to hate speech, so as not to be accused of restricting free speech or social media censorship; however, in the wake of the deadly rally, being accused of supporting extremist groups seems to be the worse option.
Carry on Ronald Reagan's tradition of support for personal freedom and conservative values by signing up for your own Reagan.com email address. Our secure private email service will keep your information and personal communications safe.
Get a Reagan Email Address Today
LEAVE A COMMENTYou must be logged in to post a comment
Why did you not note that there is no condemnation of the largest body of hate in this nation, Antifa and all associated groups.
The problem with this approach is that it leaves the definition of unsuitable speech subjective and discrimitively defined.
Censorship is no good w/o hard, fast, and fairly enforced regulation. This issue must be fixed before further polarization escalates violence. It would be like allowing oil concerns the freedom to set pricing and availability according to their own greedy profitability. Or like subjectively choosing who can have a phone or access to public electricity based upon their personal opinions.
You cannot set policy by reacting to an isolated incident ... or pretending that you are.
I'm a bit on the fence regarding censoring "hate speech" in the social media environment! First of all who or what defines what is hateful? Based on some opinions "hate" speech is defined by anything thing that disagrees with "my" opinion! While I agree the idea of shouting "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded building should not be tolerated. Everyone who enjoys their own freedom of speech should be prepared to except others speech they are in disagreement with, short of that speech that incites harassment or violence.