Hey Elon! The problem with free speech isn’t censorship, it’s algorithms
We need to take a closer look at how free speech is practiced online
Our understanding of free speech is too limited
The free speech debate has once more been ignited by news of Elon Musk’s plans totake over Twitter, his promise to reduce content moderation (including byrestoringDonald Trump’s account) and, more recently, speculation he mightpull outof the deal if Twitter can’t prove the platform isn’t inundated with bots.
Musk’s approach to free speech is typical of how this issue is often framed: in terms ofcontent moderation, censorship, and matters of deciding what speech can enter and stay on the platform.
Butour researchreveals this focus misses how platforms systematically interfere with free speech on the audience’s side, rather than the speaker’s side.
Outside the social media debate, free speech is commonly understood as the “free trade of ideas”. Speech is about discourse, not merely the right to speak. Algorithmic interference in who gets to hear which speech serves to directly undermine this free and fair exchange of ideas.
If social media platforms are“the digital equivalent of a town square”committed to defending free speech, as bothFacebook’s Mark ZuckerbergandMusk argue, then algorithmic audiencing must be considered for speech to be free.
How it works
Algorithmic audiencing happens through algorithms that either amplify or curb the reach of each message on a platform. This is done by design, based on a platform’s monetization logic.
Newsfeed algorithms amplify content that keepsusers the most “engaged”because engagement leads to more user attention ontargeted advertisingand more data collection opportunities.
This explains why some users have large audiences while others with similar ideasare barely noticed. Those who speak to the algorithm achieve the widest circulation of their ideas. This is akin tolarge-scale social engineering.
At the same time, the workings of Facebook’s and Twitter’salgorithms remain largely opaque.
How it interferes with free speech
Algorithmic audiencing has a material effect on public discourse. While content moderation only applies to harmful content (which makes up atiny fraction of all speechon these platforms), algorithmic audiencing systematically applies to all content.
So far, this kind of interference in free speech has been overlooked, because it’s unprecedented. It was not possible in traditional media.
And it is relatively recent for social media as well. In the early days, messages would simply be sent to one’s follower network, rather than subjected to algorithmic distribution. Facebook, for example, only started filling newsfeeds with thehelp of algorithmsthat optimize for engagement in 2012, after it was publicly listed and faced increased pressure to monetize.
Only in the past five years has algorithmic audiencing really become a widespread issue. At the same time, the extent of the issue isn’t fully known because it’s almost impossible for researchers to gain accessto platform data.
But we do know addressing it is important since it can drive the proliferation of harmful content such asmisinformation and disinformation.
We know such contentgets commented on and shared more, attracting further amplification.Facebook’s own researchhas shown its algorithms can drive users to join extremist groups.
What can be done?
Individually, Twitter users should heedElon Musk’s recent adviceto re-organize their newsfeeds back to chronological order, which would curb the extent of algorithmic audiencing being applied.
You can also do thisfor Facebook, but not as a default setting – so you’ll have to choose this option every time you use the platform. It’s the same casewith Instagram(which is also owned by Facebook’s parent company, Meta).
What’s more, switching to chronological order will only go so far in curbing algorithmic audiencing – because you’ll still get other content (apart from what you directly opt-in to) which will target you based on the platform’s monetization logic.
And we also know only a fraction of users ever changetheir default settings. In the end, regulation is required.
While social media platforms are private companies, they enjoy far-ranging privileges to moderate content on their platforms undersection 230 of the US’s Communications Decency Act.
In return, the public expects platforms to facilitate a free and fair exchange of their ideas, as these platforms provide the spacewhere public discourse happens. Algorithmic audiencing constitutes a breach of this privilege.
As US legislators contemplatesocial media regulation, addressing algorithmic audiencing must be on the table. Yet, so far it has hardly been part of the debate at all – with the focus squarely on content moderation.
Any serious regulation will need to challenge platforms’ entire business model since algorithmic audiencing is a direct outcome ofsurveillance capitalist logic– wherein platforms capture and commodify our content and data to predict (and influence) our behavior – all to turn a profit.
Until we are regulating this use of algorithms, and the monetization logic that underpins it, speech on social media will never be free in any genuine sense of the word.
Article byKai Riemer, Professor of Information Technology and Organisation,University of SydneyandSandra Peter, Director, Sydney Business Insights,University of Sydney
This article is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
Story byThe Conversation
An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
