Social Media Can Monitor Itself, and Protect Free Speech

Raphael O. Gomez is LoCmpio & Brown, P. It is C. Judge attorney at Buffalo. He is focused on civil litigation involving employment and labor laws.

Social media has greatly changed our way of doing things. There was no ability to reach out to the public with a little effort. Just click the button to post the video to YouTube, post it to Instagram, or record your daily diary on Facebook. Social media has created a global expression forum that requires us to adopt a positive negative attitude

Freedom of speech is an important point of democratic structure. Even with sincerity, monitoring and restricting violent content may have disastrous consequences. Who decides violent expression? Is this the lyrics song lyrics calling for killing the police? Does your complaint explain why someone killed a customer who does not stop complaining? As a member of the brotherhood, is the photograph of the newborn baby tied to the chair?

Representation of violence beyond extreme ranges is a gray area and can not be managed with firm rules. Is there an Arab Spring without social media to promote the revolution? In a more restrictive system, will the world refuse to take pictures or comments on what is going on?

Social media sites standardize content, but private companies can choose what to publish. If necessary, users can "tag" content that is deemed inappropriate for review or removal. The system allows expression without full consideration. Although it may not be the best system, it provides checking and balancing between sites and users. If social media allows you to restrict something beyond extreme range, there is a possibility that legitimate expression will be suppressed and harm to society.

At first sight, social media companies seem to protect the freedom of speech by allowing millions of people worldwide to publish large amounts of content. However, if a social media company edits content in a suspicious manner at the same time, or stops the user's account based on the problematic algorithm and the political influence of the owner, the social media company will protect the freedom of speech I can not argue.

Gab was founded in August 2016 with the mission of "Freedom of people and freedom of speech as a top priority". This philosophy is not extreme. Until a few years ago, major social media companies had freedom of speech as the basic principle. Twitter called itself "Liberal liberalist". The New York Times explained in 2013 that "Twitter has built up a sensible reputation to protect the freedom of speech and even unpopular speech." There was no rule for "hatred" until April 2015. However, in the past few years, most major social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, Medium, Snapchat, Instagram, and Google social media applications YouTube and Google+ regulate "hate speech" Is adopted. People believe that these regulations are controversial about hot issues such as immigration and crime, but are used to examine opinions that are respectful.

First, freedom of speech is a fundamental right for viewers who use social media platforms and media tools. Such speech also contributes to the development of the country. For example, freedom of speech plays an important role in the market of ideas. That is the diversity of ideas and ideas. In addition, freedom of speech can increase self-esteem of any individual in society by expressing opinions, ideas and motivating them to protect them. But how does the media respect this right? Since the media changed significantly from the past, the freedom of freedom of speech policy has also changed. In traditional media, freedom of speech is respected. But as time went on, this freedom was betrayed by the existence of commercialization. In addition, due to political influences, many television stations or radio channels have reduced freedom of speech to maintain political support. For example, a channel can control what the viewer is watching and from what angle.