Restrictions on the internet: the power struggle for accessing information

Introduction

Banning extremism: the potential benefits of deplatforming

Earlier this year, in a thread urging tech companies to do more to stop racists from organizing in social media, antifa activist Gwen Snyder tweeted that: “Deplatforming Nazis is step one in beating far right terror”. Defenders of deplatforming suggest that it is an effective tool at combatting online extremism, even if it is not risk-free.

A 2016 study of ISIS deplatforming found that the organization’s leaders lost followers and influence as they were forced to move from platform to platform. Preventing these groups from using platforms makes it more difficult for them to reach different people and recruit followers, given the fact that they use social media as one of their main vehicles for spreading their message.

In 2018, another study tracking the deplatformed extremist group Britain First found that, after being banned from Facebook and Twitter, not only did the group’s engagement decrease, but the amount of content it published online also fell. Thus, the authors of the study concluded: “Removal is clearly effective, even if it is not risk-free. Despite the risk of groups migrating to more permissive spaces, mainstream social media companies should continue to seek to remove extremist groups that breach their terms of service.”

While deplatforming extremists can arguably bring some benefits, the real question is at what cost. The risk is not migration to more permissive spaces, as the authors of this last study suggested, but the impact of these decisions on people’s rights. Ultimately, the discussion revolves around who controls what information can be accessed. And here, there is a dangerous power struggle that has just begun.

Dangers of deplatforming: more than free speech

One of the biggest arguments against deplatforming is that it is a violation of free speech. Supporters of this position assert that when certain users are targeted based on the content they publish, freedom of expression is at risk. Despite this, experts on the matter have concluded that social media purges are not subject to the First Amendment rule that protects free speech in the United States. That is because the Constitution protects against government action censoring a citizens’ speech, and social media platforms are private companies. Considering this, perhaps the real question we must ask is: what is the role of social media companies in regulating online content?

Much of this comes down to the nature of social media today. Now that online platforms have evolved from re-publishers of third-party information, to gatekeepers of discussion and human interaction, many argue that they have replaced traditional public forums and have become the de facto ‘public square’. While these unregulated companies arbitrarily decide what information can be accessed, one may but worry about what is at stake.

As social media companies become great forums of discussions, lack of certainty around their decision-making process raises significant concerns on their potential abuse of power. In the end, it is not only a question about free speech. It is a bigger debate about power. About who controls what gets to be said, and what gets to be silenced. And this is a battle that is just starting. One in which governments will not give in so easily to social media companies, and in which people will be left helpless, with less access to information, and thus, with less knowledge.

Conclusion: the battle has just begun

On June 4, 2021, the Government of Nigeria banned Twitter after the site deleted a tweet from the country’s President, and suspended his account. One day after the company was banned, it tweeted through its official account: “We are deeply concerned by the blocking of Twitter in Nigeria. Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society”.

Twitter’s position might come as a surprise from a company that has been censoring its users’ content for years. If Twitter really cared about protecting human rights, a first step would be to stop its own arbitrary censorship of ideas. What some celebrate today (like banning terrorist groups) might well come the other way around tomorrow, when someone wakes up and decides to prohibit a different type of content.

Deplatforming is not a new practice. However, the action taken by the Nigerian government is striking, as it shows the power struggle that has begun between states and social media companies. Ultimately, the concern is not about free speech or human rights. It is about power and control. While governments and social media platforms battle around who has the last word in determining what information reaches the public, citizens are left stranded: access to information is arbitrarily being limited, and therefore free thought and other democratic values are at risk.

The battle has just begun.