Through all the times big corporations like Twitter, Google were immune to the lawsuits against them regarding the content posted on each of their platforms. However, current legal cases are about to change this.
There are always battles between Republicans and Democrats, between right and left about the censorship on the Internet. Nowadays, the regulations of blocking content are not really understandable for a lot of people. Some unharmful posts can be deleted, while disturbing pictures still remain in place. So, the debates about how to make the Internet field not a paradise, but not hell at the same time, are on the stage.
This summer is considered to be decisive for the companies in the US, thus, in the European Union. The aim of the justices is to review all the existing cases and come with the legislations and systems that would prevent people from posting/seeing disturbing content, while still having a freedom of speech.
One of the most recent lawsuits was made against Twitter. Several antisemitic posts were noticed on the platform, that were indented to attack Jewish people and deny the Holocaust. Those posts breaking the law of Germany (from where they were posted) as well as breaking terms and conditions of Twitter. The users of the platform have expressed their feeling of being betrayed by the company after it was bought by Elon Mask.
Why was this post not deleted if it was violating terms and conditions of the platform?
The answer is rather easy. After Elon Mask’s purchase of Twitter, it was announced that the company is going to loosen rules and will stop banning so much of the content. The Campaign Against Antisemitism that was a close partner to the company said that the ‘laws’ of the firm started to fall apart after the shift of the ownership to the billionaire.
So, now we are approaching one of the biggest and most interesting changes when it comes to the censorship not only on platforms mentioned above, but also all over the Internet. A lot of people think that we should still leave space for the freedom of speech, as we want to build strong democracy, however this can threaten people life’s and feeling of safeness on the Internet.
While on the other side, we have the fact that banning ‘inappropriate’ content, can actually be difficult to implement, as there are no strict limitations of what is good or bad. Additionally, that would threaten one of the fundamental rights – the freedom of speech.
To read more about the thought on the topic: https://www.ft.com/content/131c1c6f-7adc-4217-b251-6e7e18570581
Thank you for the interesting article. Seems like freedom of speech and censorship rules are very hot topics these days. From my point of view, we will not see major changes in these regulations. I believe that if you want something like freedom of speech, you should visit DarkWed. There will always be some censorship in mass media, and that is not something bad, we need to limit some thoughts and opinions in order to live in a safer society. But along with that there always will be some people who will use censorship for their personal interests.
I don’t think companies should be responsible for content posted on their websites. Cause going by that logic if some person started hanging racist posters on the streets in a city we should be able to sue the city for that which doesn’t make very much sense.
The internet has greatly expanded the ability of individuals to express their opinions and share information, however, it has also created challenges for laws regulating freedom of speech. There is a delicate balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm such as hate speech, misinformation, and cyberbullying. The law struggles to keep pace with the rapid developments in technology and online behavior, leading to ongoing debates and controversies surrounding internet freedom and speech.
Hello there if youre reading thorugh the comments. Can you answer my question or reevaluate How can strong democracy threaten people life’s on the internet? Also Elon Musk is a very influential person hence the opinions of people on the new terms and condition on freedom of speach can be shifted based on what he says.
Hi, thank you for the question! I would stick to the opinion that everything at its extremes is not good. I think that democracy is one of the best things that can be, but the ‘too much of it’, will cause the disaster. The same is on the Internet, I believe people should have the right to express their thoughts, but again, to certain extent. Who would determine this extent? It is a difficult question, that I have not found exact answer for. Now people are definitely facing much more of a danger on the Internet, but this is more or less easy to avoid by knowing ow to protect yourself, your data, etc. Hope I have answered your question.
It is hard to assess what is good or bad as it is a subjective opinion. Nevertheless, some ideas spread on a global scale like those calling upon haters to some nations or ethnicities can lead to the polarisation of the society and unnecessary violence as it is easy to spread misinformation online, therefore there have to be some limitations of what can we say online, yet it is hard to tell who should make those limitations.
It is very important to constantly evaluate and adjust laws to the developement of technology and industries. They have to be up to date in every aspect. I think EU is working on it pretty hard in terms of GDPR, although possibly it is still insufficient. Maybe in the future we will be able to do it in te real time thanks to AI. How exciting would that be?!
Social media and freedom of speech in the same sentence have a controversial connotation. I actually believe that laws need to be introduced do reduce the spread of disinformation and propaganda on social media. Nevertheless, I am not sure if politicians will not use it to abuse the freedom of speech, but I think that at least in the US where just saying that someone may invade any kind of freedom will result in a cosmic sized outburst, not much will be done in that direction as no politician will want to take the fall for it.