Although this article does raise some points which will be argued
later, I fundamentally disagree with their attack on social media mongrels such
as Twitter whose selling point and main feature is absolute freedom of speech.
Chemaly asking Twitter and other social networking elites to implement both “safety
and freedom of speech” is a paradox in itself due to the nature of free speech
allowing anything and everything to be said. According to Chemaly “Twitter’s fundamental
structure, enabling as close to unfettered communication as possible, is simultaneously
the source of its profit and its abuse potential” but this structure cannot be
altered without disabling the function of the website and imposing limits on
the freedom of speech of any and all individuals using this communications
network. This structure which was, and remains, the founding pillar of the
company is simultaneously the only aspect which cannot be compromised on since
the existence of an outlet which allows no-strings attached communication to a
massive audience is not only a great way to communicate with friends and family
nationally and internationally, but the scope of the audience that can be
reached allows Twitter, amongst others, to be used as vital modern day
instruments for social change and evolution. This necessity is especially
important in countries where restrictions have been placed on free speech by
the governments themselves such as in Egypt and Libya where entire regimes have
been toppled through the use of social media as a means of mass communication and
national connectivity amongst those working for a greater future. The efforts
put forth by these individuals, and the results of their online/real world
revolutions, would have been in vain had Twitter’s harassment restrictions been
stricter than they were at the time simply due to the fact that these people
were harassing politicians throughout the revolution and as such would have
been banned from communicating via the networking site and would have lost the
massive audience Twitter provides. For this reason I believe that the movement
towards increasing policies against volatile and emotional speech on Twitter
violates the “respect for the basic principles of free expression” (Chemaly)
which are integral for any and all modern democratic societies.
Despite my beliefs regarding this
topic of free speech, Chemaly does propose some valid arguments mainly when
considering the effect of consumer needs on company policy. As Chemaly points
out Twitter, and all social networks, is a private company that “[prioritizes]
profit” and to do so must attract the largest possible audience. This inherent
limit in the purpose of capitalism forces the company to compromise on some of
its core beliefs so that the needs of the community may be met, and the most
customers would be attracted, such as when backlash to when the “company
changed (and then restored) its blocking feature” (Chemaly) forced it to submit
to the demands of the population so that they would keep profits high. Due to
this need to please the many company policies may once again be forced to
impose more drastic changes in an attempt to increase overall safety, and with
it acceptance, of users of the social network similar to changes implemented by
Facebook to “recognize instances of gender-based hate and harassment on its
platform” (Chemaly). Although these changes would reduce the overall freedom of
the website and the allowance of individuals to speak whatever is on their
minds, be it good or bad, Twitter will have to make these changes and adapt to
the ever changing social market so that it may survive in the long run as a relevant
and prominent social network. As Chemaly states “Twitter is now constantly
updating its policies and rules to create a more level playing field” and
thereby allowing itself to be more accepted by the public and turnover a larger
profit by the year’s end.
Works Cited
Chemaly, Soraya. "Twitter’s
Safety and Free Speech Tightrope." TIME Ideas. TIME, 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.
moodle
ReplyDelete