Social Media Censorship Essay

It is no exaggeration to say that social media has taken over the 21st century. There are nearly 3.5 billion active social media users in the world and the average person has seven different social media accounts (Smith). Each social media site has its terms of the agreement, which formally addresses its content and media posting policies. Overall, these policies are established to provide a safe and entertaining environment for its users. However, over the years, the policies have been ever-changing and becoming more restrictive. While some changes are deemed reasonable, such as limiting the amount of data that websites can use from our profiles, other changes, such as implementing algorithms to flag and/or terminate posts due to what are deemed ‘censored’ terms, have most certainly caused controversy among users. Circumstances like these lead users to question their parameters of expression. How are politicians able to express their views to the other side if algorithms on Twitter are preventing that from happening? How are companies supposed to promote their products to target audiences on Instagram when age-based restrictions are applied to their ads? Censorship in social media has taken a conservative turn due to views on the infringement of free speech, the lack of exposure to opposing views, and robotic posts pushing products based on algorithms and restrictions.

While there are many different aspects to censorship, the main one that has arisen is the infringement of free speech, especially in the realm of social media. Seen as a place for freedom and expression, social media platforms are cracking down on what they are allowing on their sites and what they think needs to be changed. One of the main problems users are having with social media sites is posts being censored due to a word that triggers the post to be flagged for further evaluation. Freedom of speech only goes as far as the policies on a social media platform will allow. For example, Facebook bans hate speech but “does allow humor, satire, or social commentary related to these topics” (Nott). While Facebook states its ban for these conditions, other sites like YouTube simply state that talk of hate, discrimination, and/or violence is not supported (Nott).

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

One point that needs to be made is who can and can’t censor. Privatized companies can censor users on their social media platforms, but they are unable to censor outside of their website premises. The government is allowed to, however. Ari Waldman, who was a speaker in front of the House Judiciary hearing on Filtering Practice Hearings of Social Media stated, “We don’t have a First Amendment right to Facebook’s amplification of our words” (Crews Jr.). It was during this hearing that senators pointed out that if Facebook was involved in political speech, they would fail to be exempt from specific restricted immunities of the Communications Decency Act. While people are allowed to own up to their right to free speech, social media platforms don’t have to provide you with that right (Crews Jr.).

Many politicians believe that their posts are being censored. Many sources suggest many things. Culture in the technology industry has come up. Silicon Valley, the tech capital of America, is largely liberal (French). Therefore, it is not surprising that a study surveying Facebook users found that conservatives felt “their voices were being suppressed” which paralleled the fact that “64 percent of Republicans surveyed said social media sites favored liberal voices” (Dellinger). Despite the Republicans feeling censored, they continue to stay on social media. In the past year, a website called Safe Space 1776, had been created as a safe space for conservatives who feel as if their freedom of speech is being compromised (Rodgers).

Though these politicians feel like they are being censored, there have been instances in which politicians have been accused of filtering and censoring their posts or what they can read. President Trump recently stuck his hand in this jar with his involvement in social media filtering. In May of 2018, a district court in New York filed a case against President Trump and three additional members of his staff for violating the First Amendment via “discrimination against other viewpoints (mostly critics) and preventing them from participating in the debate on his Twitter page” via blocking them (Fischer). The case has since been appealed but it started a trend, in which two other courts have filed similar cases against governmental social media pages. Another prominent case happened in 2013 in Indiana, with then-governor, Mike Pence. Pence attracted much attention when he voiced his disappointment with a Supreme Court decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. He posted on Facebook his disagreement with the decision. As comments started accumulating on his Facebook post, Pence’s staff took to his page and started to remove comments that didn’t align with Pence’s or that were offensive to his stance. Users noticed immediately and within a day, Pence released a statement explaining how comments were taken down over the use of vulgar language and such, even though many were simply disagreements with Pence’s stance (Taylor).

Though many want answers to the problems of censorship in social media, there are few resolutions. Reforms for social media censorship have little chance of happening on the federal level. Tyler Grant, who is employed as an attorney outlines two ways that reform can happen on a state level. One option includes charging social media companies to sell data from banned users and reaping a profit from it. Another option is that states could set up a payout for users who are barred from website use in consideration of privacy. Reforms of these sorts would have a direct impact on the case of Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist, and his website, InfoWars, all of which have been banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other social media platforms. Jones was barred from these websites due to a violation of policies, which failed to be clearly defined. Jones’s defense held us that he was a conspiracy theorist, all of what he was saying was as such (Murphy). If reforms like the ones stated above, were to be implemented, Jones would have to be compensated or have his privacy bought out.

Many politicians have been affected by social media, especially in the realm of their displayed viewpoints. The lack of exposure that politicians can portray to the opposing parties is prominent now more than ever. The phenomenon of echo chambers is a direct cause of why this occurs. Echo chambers refer to a sounding area in which ideas and opinions are similar or ideal to one’s beliefs, therefore not accessing outside opinions or ideals that are different. This phenomenon is seen on social media sites with ties that are made between users. Stronger ties are more likely to share content between users that is agreeable. Weaker ties are more likely to share views that are not within the user’s normal realm of exposure. That is what a small echo chamber is about. However, it comes to an issue when this echo chamber that has been created is preventing the views of others from seeing due to algorithms making it harder to access. That is what Facebook was being accused of in the first part of this decade (Aldhous).

Facebook came under fire for continual accusations of being an echo chamber. Facebook combatted these accusations by conducting a study done by Facebook itself in 2012. The internal study led by Facebook’s data expert, Eytan Bakshy, concluded that Facebook was not an echo chamber. His reasonings encompassed the fact that most users have more weak ties than strong ties. Weaker ties lead to more exposure to what they call “novel information”, while stronger ties allow more exposure to alike ideologies and views (Manjoo). For example, if one has many friends that are associated with a Trump campaign following but their few close friends are associated with a Sanders campaign, the user will ultimately see both. However, due to the greater number of ties with the Trump campaign, the user will see more about his campaign as opposed to Sanders’ campaign. Though it makes sense, it may not be the same case as this day in age.

Since Facebook released its statement denying being an echo chamber in 2012, much has changed. Some of the changes come with newer algorithms in place that filter a timeline to a person’s ideals, more or less. Bringing this topic back to politics, a study performed in 2015 found that of 10.1 million Facebook users newsfeed’s, found that “only 24 percent of news stories shared by liberal’s friends were cross-cutting and about 35 percent of stories shared by conservatives’ friends were cross-cutting” (Hosanagar). This newsfeed algorithm utilized by Facebook essentially hand-picks the stories that we are exposed to based on a user’s interaction with other users on the site. While the study recognizes aspects of political exposure due to engagements made by the users, there is some fault in the newsfeed algorithms Facebook uses to keep users trapped in their idealistic surroundings: an echo chamber (Hosanagar).

Over the past years, the advertising community has found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow with social media. The newest platforms of social media are a seamless stand for promoting products and services of all varieties. Instagram has had great success with product exposure and promotion since its start in November of 2013 after Facebook bought the up-and-coming social media giant in 2012. Though few advertisements were present on Instagram in 2013 and 2014, 2015 brought change when Instagram announced that advertisements would be open to all who are looking to get product and service exposure (Goel & Ember). However, it wouldn’t be ideal to have an advertisement for a grocery store in Alaska come onto one’s feed if they live in Florida. Somehow, Instagram managed to have relevant and related advertisements show up on one’s feed. The mystery behind what advertisements get promoted on a user’s timeline or feed comes from algorithms that are developed by social media platforms. Instagram’s algorithm allows for the display of advertisements on your feed based on three main factors: interest, relationship, and timeliness. The more posts that one interreacts with that contain specific words are noted by the algorithm displaying more posts including those words. The same ideology goes for interactions with people. If one follows many people who also follow a certain person, Instagram will try to expose you to that certain person’s post due to association. Timeliness encompasses when a post was uploaded, in which the newer the posts will have a higher likelihood of being shown on a feed before older posts (Bond). All of this is confirmed by what Instagram states on its business page for users and advertisers (Instagram).

The algorithms used to show related content is also the same algorithm used to promote products and services, which is utterly important to brands that have large followings on social media. The more content that one interacts with, the more products that relate to that will be shown on one’s feed. Consequently, the more exposure that a brand has, the better chance the company will attract customers (Bond). Not only does the brand have the opportunity to make money, but Instagram and its parent company, Facebook, cashe in at their expense. By the end of 2019, Instagram is predicted to make over $14 billion from advertisement revenue alone due to trends that were set back in 2017. If this trend were to continue, Instagram would make around $22.2 billion in 2020 (Wagner & Molla). However, there have been new forces that may impact the numbers. The most recent news that has come from advertisements on social media encompasses the parameters of product and service promotion on Instagram. In September 2019, Instagram set a new policy in place that prevented users identified under the age of 18 from being exposed to advertisements that promote products or services that are along the lines of weight loss and cosmetic surgeries. This was set in place, as described by Instagram’s public policy manager, Emma Collins, to “reduce the pressure that people can sometimes feel as a result of social media” (Alexander).

With sites such as Instagram and Facebook implementing age-restricted ad blocking, age-based targeting has been affected by slowing product revenue that comes directly from product promotion on these social media sites. Instagram, having what many see as the best platform for product promotion, has an endless amount of companies that rely on age-based targeting to increase their exposure and revenue. Of those companies that are at the forefront of using this tactic, many fall under the beauty and health industries. As stated before, Instagram will now have age-restricted advertisements for companies promoting weight loss products and cosmetic surgeries. This new policy set in place has a direct impact on influencers, who are primary supporters of products that are being censored. In some cases, the posts made by influencers have the possibility of being completely removed if they “make a miraculous claim about certain diet or weight loss products, and are linked to a commercial offer such as a discount code” (Alexander). Instagram also claims that its original advertising guidelines and policies were not meant to permit this form of advertisement and promotion. Since the rise of social media influencers, the culture has since changed, pressuring Instagram to make further regulations on this issue. With algorithms being used for product promotion as well, there will be some fallback in what can be promoted and what influencers are allowed to promote on their pages. Not all products that are aimed towards targeted audiences will be able to see them. For example, a 16-year-old may not be able to see all of Kylie Jenner’s posts because they contain products that address weight loss or cosmetic procedures. That censorship will affect Instagram’s advertisement revenue, the company’s revenue, and the targeted audience. Celebrities such as Jameela Jamil, who has struggled with an eating disorder since a young age, have praised Instagram for allowing the change, saying it is a “huge win for our ongoing fight against the diet/detox industry” (Lewis).

Social media has undoubtedly changed the way the world works. It is a source of news, entertainment, mass communication, and much more. These platforms, reaching billions of users around the globe, each have their regulations, like most websites do. However, in recent years, the crackdown on what is acceptable content to post has been nothing short of a blurred line. Ever-changing policies and politically-driven agendas lead to what is being seen as the rise of social media censorship. The effects of this are seen by its users and affect anyone who takes part in social media activity. Censorship in social media has taken a conservative turn due to views on the infringement of free speech, the lack of exposure to opposing views, and robotic posts pushing products based on algorithms and restrictions.

Works Cited

1. Aldhous, Peter. “Is Facebook More than Just an Online 'Echo Chamber'?” New Scientist, 18 Jan. 2012, www.newscientist.com/article/dn21365-is-facebook-more-than-just-an-online-echo-chamber/.
2. Alexander, Julia. “Instagram Will Restrict Who Can See Posts about Cosmetic Procedures, Weight Loss Products.” The Verge, 18 Sept. 2019, www.theverge.com/2019/9/18/20872711/instagram-weight-loss-cosmetic-procedures-restrictions-policy-wellness-influencer-marketing.
3. Bond, Conor. “The Secrets of the Instagram Algorithm - Revealed!” WordStream, 19 Aug. 2019, www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2018/06/13/instagram-algorithm.
4. Crews Jr., Clyde Wayne. “Social Media Filtering Is Not Censorship.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 26 Apr. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2018/04/26/social-media-filtering-is-not-censorship/#43ed768c438d.
5. Dellinger, AJ. “Majority of Americans Think Social Media Sites Censor Political Viewpoints.” Gizmodo, 29 June 2018, www.gizmodo.com/majority-of-americans-think-social-media-sites-censor-p-1827226244.
6. Fischer, Camille. “Courts to Government Officials: Stop Censoring on Social Media.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 14 May 2019, www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/05/courts-government-officials-stop-censoring-social-media.
7. French, David. “Social-Media Censorship Is the Product of Culture and Commerce.” National Review, National Review, 6 June 2019, www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/social-media-censorship-is-the-product-of-culture-and-commerce/.
8. Goel, Vindu, and Ember, Sydney. “Instagram to Open Its Photo Feed to Ads.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 June 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/technology/instagram-to-announce-plans-to-expand-advertising.html.
9. Grant, Tyler. “These Two Legal Reforms Could End Social Media Censorship for Good.” Washington Examiner, Washington Examiner, 29 July 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/these-two-legal-reforms-could-end-social-media-censorship-for-good.
10. Hosanagar, Kartik. “Blame the Echo Chamber on Facebook. But Blame Yourself, Too.” Wired, 3 June 2017, www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-echo-chamber/.
11. Instagram. “Advertising on Instagram: Instagram Business.” Instagram, https://business.instagram.com/advertising/.
12. Lewis, Sophie. “Instagram Posts That Promote Weight Loss Will Be Hidden from Users under 18.” CBS News, 18 Sept. 2019, www.cbsnews.com/news/instagram-posts-that-promote-weight-loss-will-be-hidden-from-users-under-18/.
13. Manjoo, Farhad. “The End of the Echo Chamber.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 17 Jan. 2012, www.slate.com/technology/2012/01/online-echo-chambers-a-study-of-250-million-facebook-users-reveals-the-web-isnt-as-polarized-as-we-thought.html.
14. Murphy, James. “The Censorship Battle of Alex Jones and Why It Affects Us All.” Gale in Context, 2019, https://go-gale-com.leo.lib.unomaha.edu/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Viewpoints&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=MultiTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CQISQQH316315396&docType=Viewpoint%2Bessay&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZXAY-MOD1&prodId=OVIC&contentSet=GALE%7CQISQQH316315396&searchId=R1&userGroupName=omah52829&inPS=true.
15. Nott, Lata. “Free Expression on Social Media.” Freedom Forum Institute, 2019, https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/primers/free-expression-on-social-media/.
16. Rodgers, James. “New Social Media Platform Aims to Combat Conservative Censorship.” PR Newswire US, 20 June 2019. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.leo.lib.unomaha.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=0b54d5a8-55dd-464a-8180-6122dfdb892a%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=201906201026PR.NEWS.USPR.PH90835&db=n5h
17. Smith, Kit. “126 Amazing Social Media Statistics and Facts.” Brandwatch, 13 June 2019, www.brandwatch.com/blog/amazing-social-media-statistics-and-facts/.
18. Taylor, Paul W. “The Blurred Lines Between Social Media and Censorship.” Governing, Sept. 2013, www.governing.com/columns/dispatch/col-blurred-lines-between-social-media-censorship.html.
19. Wagner, Kurt & Molla, Rani. “Facebook Will Soon Rely on Instagram for the Majority of Its Ad Revenue Growth.” Vox, 9 Oct. 2018, www.vox.com/2018/10/9/17938356/facebook-instagram-future-revenue-growth-kevin-systrom.