Blog Post 5: Fight for the Net

Net Neutrality

Stakeholders

The major groups involved in the issue of net neutrality include the FCC, internet service providers, big tech companies and the general public. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is led by Ajit Pai, who spearheaded the movement to repeal net neutrality in 2018. The FCC is responsible for regulating the radio, phone and television industries in the U.S. Through this power, they can determine how much control the private sector has versus how much control the government has over the various services in the communication industries. In their website, the FCC claims that their main function is to promote competition, innovation and investment in broadband services and facilities. ISPs or Internet Service Providers include companies such as Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and several other big name telecommunications companies that control the majority of the internet broadband in the U.S. These companies agree with each other on how to divide the limited broadband available in the country to different populations in the U.S. Big tech companies include companies such as Google, Netflix, Facebook etc. that do not deal with much in the telecommunications industry but are mainly focused on attracting as many users as possible to their platforms. These companies are affected by the net neutrality issue because ISPs could potentially control how easily their users can access the sites hosted by the big tech companies. Lastly, the general public/consumers of internet services have a stake in this battle for mostly obvious reasons. The thought that ISPs that control most of the internet broadband in the country are able to control how easily you can access information on the internet is a scary thought, which is why this issue caught so much traction in 2018.

Positions

The positions and beliefs of the stakeholders detailed above coincide with what one would expect them to be, save the FCC’s. Given that it is a government organization, one might presume that it would seek to increase regulations. However, with the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, it moved to do the opposite, as laid out in the Order’s mission statement: “…It replaces unnecessary, heavy-handed regulations that were developed way back in 1934 with strong consumer protections, increased transparency, and common-sense rules that will promote investment and broadband deployment.” This is an about-face on policy given that in 2011 the FCC declared the internet a public utility and introduced a litany of regulations. Thus, its repeal of net neutrality is a bit of a shock. The ISPs of course are for the repeal of net neutrality as well, as the result of this would give them more freedom on what services they can provide and at what cost. Big tech companies are against this repeal for the same reason, as it would entail higher prices for delivering high cost data or large traffics of data. Finally, the general public, at the height of the debate, seemed to generally support net neutrality, although whether or not the public at large was cognizant of what that entailed, other than the vague notion of an “free and open internet,” is uncertain.

Deplatforming

Opposition

Opposition to deplatforming focuses on claiming that deplatforming is a violation of freedom of speech. By removing the user from the platform, the platform is essentially censoring that user which is an infringement of the user’s freedom of speech. Although freedom of speech is not a universal right, it is more of an American one, it should still apply in many deplatforming cases. Many major social media platforms are American companies—Twitter and Facebook for example—and should hold freedom of speech as a company value. Twitter’s mission statement is as follows:

“The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free and global conversation.”

By using phrases such as “without barriers” and “free,” it is clear that freedom of speech is an important value for Twitter.

Proponents

While some may argue that deplatforming is a violation of free speech, there are many flaws in that core argument. The idea of free speech as a law only extends to the government. That is, in the United States, one can be imprisoned for what they say. There are restrictions, such as calls for violence or defamation, but most other views and opinions are legally permissible. However, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t any consequences for what one says when exercising free speech. Society is disconnected from the government, and these online platforms are frankly private entities benefit from society. If people are unhappy, they are free to criticize them, and the hosts are able to moderate their platform accordingly. These platforms may abuse their power and ban people for personal reasons - which is still within their rights - but more often than not, they have their own terms of service that outline the rules of using their platform. If somebody uses inflammatory language using their platform, that not only leaves an impression on the speaker, but also the platform that allows this to happen. The platform owners can let these pass, but if it goes against what the platform wants or it means an economic fiasco, there is more than enough reason to deplatform the offenders.

In much the same way that these platforms have the ability to determine who can use their product, users have the ability to seek alternative platforms to spread their message. Websites like Gab were made with the intent to give those that aren’t happy with the way popular websites are run a place to speak freely. As far of protection of freedom of speech is concerned, it is still entirely allowed on the internet. While this might not have as big of an influence as, say, Twitter, that is merely a product of society.

One can also argue that deplatforming is a breach of free speech not as a law, but as a principle, which has some validity to it. Having restrictions on what can be said on a platform limits free speech, but that really isn’t the concern of a private entity. There are arguments that the social media giants are a big enough influence on public discourse that free speech on these platforms are ethically necessary, but that is a subjective view and vary from person to person.

Legalist Analysis

The Legalist philosophy should be in theory, and is in practice, in favor of deplatforming and other related practices. The primary argument against deplatforming is based in the value of free speech. However, the principle of free speech does not follow from the tenets of Legalism. Free speech advocates generally support a marketplace of ideas, the concept that individuals, given access to the full breadth of views and philosophies, will generally be able to select the best, most true, and most ethical ones and adopt them as their own. This runs directly contrary to Legalism’s view that people cannot be trusted to develop their own virtue. Instead, people should be given virtues to follow and incentives to conform to the virtues, as well as punishments for those who fail to do so. Indeed, in modern China, which is adopting a similar system in its social credit score, social media is widely censored and dissident writers, thinkers, and religious figures have been known to be imprisoned to stop the spread of their ideas.

Furthermore, the practice of deplatforming conforms with the Legalist value of peace and order through strength. Free speech will naturally create conflict among people with divergent views. Indeed, such conflicts have sometimes spilled over in the real world, with situations like the shooting at the Republican baseball practice and the Pizzagate shooting. Though the chaos caused by online disagreement pales in comparison to the chaos of the Warring States Period, the principle remains the same: Individuality should be quashed in the interest of peace and virtue as ordained by higher authorities.

It should also be noted, however, that the current arrangement of deplatforming falls short of Legalist ideals in one important way: While Legalism supports the absolute authority of the state, American society leaves the power to deplatform with its various large technology companies. This has several conflicts with Legalism. Firstly, this corporate emphasis leaves room for subversive voices to continue their advocacy, albeit through less public channels. We see one example of this in the persistence of InfoWars. Furthermore, this status quo gives companies the power to police views on their discretion, and by extension, promote other views. This could potentially represent a threat to governmental authority. Finally, since there are multiple acting authorities involved in the process of deplatforming, there exists the potential for conflict and chaos, which runs counter to the ideals of Legalism.

Deplatforming and Echo Chambers

Summary

Majority of people on social media experience an online echo chamber. Social media users continuously see content and opinions primarily posted by friends and media outlets that they follow. The idea of an online echo chamber stems from a real-world echo chamber, where a user sees posts and media outlets that are similar to ideas and opinions that they, themselves post or like. There are algorithms in place, like those used by Facebook, that tend to guide users toward articles or ads that reflect their preferences. It is also true that these algorithms lead to more feed personalization over time. Users are continuously making choices about what to read and watch, and without knowing it, they are allowing the chambers to become deeper.

Recent Deplatforming Attempts

Various companies that hold user accounts, such as Facebook and Cloudflare, need to occasionally remove users from their social platform if their actions violate terms of agreement, participate in harassment campaigns, or if the company deems necessary. For example, in 2017, Cloudflare terminated the account of the Daily Stormer because they made a claim that Cloudflare was secretly supportive of their ideology, which was false. Because of this, they would not be able to sign up for Cloudflare’s services ever again. However, although terminating their content on their platform will not necessarily make the content go away; it will just be slower and more vulnerable to attack.

Another example of a deplatforming attempt was removing Alex Jones from various different social media sites such as Facebook and Youtube in 2018. He created podcasts that would exhibit racism, hate speech, harassment, and other horrors, so these companies removed his content from their platforms. However, just as stated with Cloudflare’s removal of Daily Stormer, this removal of Alex Jones’s content is still accessible, but not as easily as before. Unfortunately, deplatforming does not mean that content is permanently removed from all social media platforms because most of these companies are private and do not hold access to all versions of this content. This is the case with most deplatformed users and will continue to be the case unless the United States gives access to all social media platforms to the government so they remove it off of all platforms, like in China.

Could Deplatforming Affect Echo Chambers?

Deplatforming, which is essentially the removal of an individual or groups of content creators from an online social platform, has the potential to have a small impact on echo chambers. It can reduce radicalism, which can make echo chambers less dangerous but does not really solve the problem of their existence in the first place.

Deplatforming could have a small impact on preventing echo chambers by removing radical ideas from the internet that could pull individual users further into an echo chamber. Echo chambers generally develop over time as an individual or groups of individuals create and consume more and more content which is topically similar and which leans one way or another on a particular issue. Radical opinions, which are spread throughout the internet by users who could be deplatformed, drive echo chamber development to be faster and have more significant effects on users. There are instances in which what a user reads online turns into violent or unethical action in their real life. This can be a result of echo chambers in their nature, but it is more likely a result of radicalism within those echo chambers. This is something that deplatforming has the potential to change.

Deplatforming, however, will never in-and-of-itself prevent or reduce online echo chambers. There is money to be made in algorithms which bring the content that people tend to enjoy to them on the internet, and deplatforming will not impact the economics or function of those algorithms. Furthermore, even if radicalism is removed from the internet constantly, it is unlikely that each and every radical user could be identified and removed. Thus, deplatforming can reduce the danger of echo chambers slightly, but will never manifest itself as the solution to them.