Social Media is Not a Right
Earlier this month, Instagram and Facebook purged their sites of far-right leaders such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones. In addition, they have banned any information regarding Infowars, which means that sharing, liking any posts or following any accounts relating to Infowars is not allowed anymore on the two platforms. In response, many of the banned leaders’ followers have brought up the issue that Facebook’s actions pose in regard to the First Amendment. Under Constitutional law, they say, Mark Zuckerberg has no right to ban these people from the platforms because they deserve the right to speak freely.
There are a couple of reasons as to why this is wrong. One: there is no law or precedent for freedom of speech on social media yet. The fact is that social media is relatively new and the law is still trying to adapt to these changes. Up until now, most of the court’s decisions have been against the idea of free speech on social media—and for good reason. When you create an account on a social media platform, you are entering a site which is controlled by the CEO and the company which created it. America has freedom of speech because the only rules we set are our own.
However, on Instagram or Facebook, the rules are set by Mark Zuckerberg and the Facebook company. If you do not follow these rules, you will be expelled from the site. Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, and these other right-wing leaders have been using these sites to expound ideas which are harmful to certain people. For example, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam—one of the banned users, referred to “Satanic Jews” in a speech he gave in response to his banishment from the social media sites. Nobody wants to be part of a network with someone like Louis Farrakhan and if customers feel that the platform gives voice to people who are divisive or dangerous, they won’t buy the company’s products. As a result, it is natural for social media companies to reserve the right to kick users off their platform. In fact, it’s good business.
Another reason that Instagram and Facebook were correct in removing these accounts was the fact that those accounts were spreading fake news. The people that were removed deliberately sowed misinformation every day. For example, Paul Joseph Watson, one of the banned, tweeted in response to his banishment that "I have been banned by Facebook ... I broke none of their rules. In an authoritarian society controlled by a handful of Silicon Valley giants, all dissent must be purged." Although there are people online who believe what Watson is saying, that Silicon Valley tycoons control all form of government in the US, he is still deliberately misleading the public with exaggerated information. That is an incredibly irresponsible statement and Watson is not the type of person who should be using a platform on which you can, pretty much unhindered, post any statements.
The fact is, Zuckerberg was right to do this because Instagram and Facebook are two of the most popular social media sites. When you post on either one, there are simply more people to read what you write. If you write something that has the possibility of misinforming people, you are likely to misinform a larger group of people on Instagram or Facebook rather than on other social media platforms due to their large following. The alt-right leaders that the Facebook company banned promoted dangerous ideologies and it's important to take into consideration that social media allows you to directly reach common people to whom these inaccurate ideologies may spread to.
Social media makes your viewpoints accessible. If the person who is accessible has a dangerous message which they will spread to their followers, it is duty of those who run the platform to police it as well and to remove the dangerous user before they cause any more damage to the platform. It's kindergarten logic. If you don't play by the rules, you lose your privileges.