“Prime Minister Theresa May’s political fortunes may be waning in Britain, but her push to make internet companies police their users’ speech is alive and well. In the aftermath of the recent London attacks, Ms. May called platforms like Google and Facebook breeding grounds for terrorism. She has demanded that they build tools to identify and remove extremist content. Leaders of the Group of 7 countries recently suggested the same thing. Germany wants to fine platforms up to 50 million euros if they don’t quickly take down illegal content. And a European Union draft law would make YouTube and other video hosts responsible for ensuring that users never share violent speech.”
Excellent piece by Daphne Keller. Complicated too.
Here are two comments a currently agree with.
Users of social platforms must understand that they are using the property of a private institution and that they do not carry with them an undiluted first amendment right to self-expression. Much like this forum where I cannot advocate violent government overthrow or physical harm to political leaders with any expectation of being published, users of social media have to understand they have limits too. I am not persuaded by arguments about censorship or free speech. They are not a forums for free speech and they carry a social duty to inform or enlighten in some way, and not to yell fire in the proverbial theater. The internet is a free forum where anyone can develop a website to broadcast any virulent tripe they want. But a social media platform is someone else’s property and free speech rights should not be automatically granted or expected.