Blog 9: Social Media and Moderation

The following case study examines the effects that social media may have had on the spreading of misinformation, comparing it with past anecdotes of similar happenings. In doing so, the author argues against the use of censorship for preventing such misinformation.

Read The Case Study Here:
Censorship of Misinformation and Freedom of Speech on Social Media

Regarding the study

Although misinformation has persisted in media coverage for decades, I do believe that social media has allowed it to flourish. I do not agree with the fact though that it must be censored to prevent this spreading, as there are more productive solutions available (as outlined in the above case study). One prime example of this is the addition of community notes on twitter (now X), which are widely-accepted refutations to misinformation that are directly attached to posts. This makes far more sense than just blocking posts with such information, because it allows everyone’s voice to still be heard (whether right or wrong) while also forcing context to everyone who happens upon it. Adversely, censoring people will only reinforce their beliefs because they feel like they’re only being silenced from spreading the truth. It’s for that reason that I don’t believe social media censorship specifically regarding mis/disinformation is never a justified solution: because it just won’t work. Ultimately, people will migrate to spaces in which their voices are heard and respected, and they become echo chambers for their false beliefs (like what happened with truth social). So although social media furthers the spreading of misinformation, it offers what I believe to be an even more effective solution to combat it in a world where incorrect beliefs would exist regardless of whether or not they were spread online. Frankly, we live in an age where information is so readily available that anyone can be well-informed on just about any subject so long as they’re diligent in where they acquire their sources; something that wouldn’t be fathomable without the internet. This would require them to trust information from many individuals, however, as such a vast collection of knowledge necessitates a collaborative effort. Though this trust can be mis-placed or taken advantage of, it is the job of the people as a collective to combat misinformation, not the government or private companies to outright censor voices they disagree with. Otherwise, we are denying people of free speech which may only seem productive to the point in which it silences you as well.

Consider the following

Using community notes as an example, what are other methods that social media companies could employ besides censorship to combat misinformation?

I came up with this question because the case study asks the questions “What institutions exist” and “What strategies can you” employ, but it doesn’t really ask the user to consider options that social media companies could explore themselves since they ultimately have the most control in situations like this. I gave community notes as an example of this because they’re really good and one of the few few good things to happen post-Musk acquiring twitter.

Final Reflection

This case study was a bit of a long read, but it didn’t feel too bad since I actually was somewhat familiar with how conservative media has developed differently from the mainstream, so I had additional context as I was working through it. I also definitely agree with the author on the point that censorship in this case is really never a valid option because it won’t matter whether or not people can post their beliefs, as they’ll hold those beliefs regardless. The discussion questions felt very vague, though not necessarily hard to answer (if that makes sense). I tried my best to tie them all into one big paragraph, though I’m not sure if I was direct enough in my answers to make it obvious that I was answering them specifically. Either way I still felt like I had some good stuff to say on the matter, and that this post doesn’t feel purposeless.