#Embr platforms free

From this point of view, appeals to the freedom of speech made by the social networks seem unfair or deceptive.Īnother important point to consider is the fact that a few big tech companies currently dominate social media services, which also serve as a source of news to many users. Or, at least, they did not expect biased censorship on the platforms. Many users of social media might have believed in these ideals when joining the online communities. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, has similarly been vocal about Facebook's commitment to the freedom of speech ( ).

#Embr platforms free

Twitter's manager once described his company as “the free speech wing of the free speech party” ( ). YouTube, for example, declares on its website that its “mission is to give everyone a voice” ( ). First, censorship on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube appears to contradict the very idea of these communication networks, that is, of spaces where everyone can express their opinion. However, such a view overlooks salient aspects of the issue. Social media platforms are private companies and as such, one could argue, they should be able to decide what content they tolerate or not. … an analysis of content banned on social networks suggests that the moderation is often politically biased … Trump's tweets as violating Twitter's policy about glorifying violence or abusive behaviour, or adding a warning suggesting that a post was factually inaccurate ( ).

Some very recent examples of moderation with apparent political ramifications include Twitter's labelling of US President Donald J.

Indeed, an analysis of content banned on social networks suggests that the moderation is often politically biased (Stjernfelt & Lauritzen, 2020). These categories are not only often broader than the exceptions to the freedom of speech entrenched in legislations of democratic countries, but also implicitly vague and leave plenty of room to interpretation. Examples of “objectionable content” include “hate speech”, “glorification of violence” or “harmful and dangerous content”. These companies regularly remove content that they consider as objectionable based on continually updated categories outlined in their policies. In this essay, I will discuss the censorship on social media platforms related to COVID‐19 and the problems it raises along with an alternative approach to counteract the spread of medical and scientific misinformation.Ĭensorship on major social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, is not a new phenomenon. Main social media platforms have also actively fought against false information by filtering out or flagging content considered as misinformation. Information campaigns have been launched to provide wider audiences with reliable information about COVID‐19. Academic researchers, international organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union, individual governments and the media have acknowledged and discussed the prevalence of the alleged COVID‐19 infodemic and the importance of fighting it. The term, coined in 2003 in the context of the first SARS epidemic, refers to a rapid proliferation of information that is often false or uncertain ( ). In February this year, when the new coronavirus began to spread outside China, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced: “we're not just fighting an epidemic we're fighting an infodemic” ( ).