Introduction
Modern society perceives social networks as a place where you can openly broadcast your thoughts without breaking the law. However, there is an important nuance, which is expressed in the fact that freedom of speech on such sites exists as long as a person does not begin to tell the “inconvenient truth.” This phenomenon is not typical for any particular region or society, it happens the same way in the USA and Russia, Europe, and other countries. An Internet user can be accused of racism, discrimination, anti-Semitism, and other things. Social networks do not have the necessary freedom of speech, and empowering people to publish the content seems to be a difficult process.
Why Cannot People Have Freedom of Speech on Social Networks
The phenomenon of “freedom of speech” has always had its limits. The right to freedom of speech does not mean that a person can demand, for example, that the church respect atheists and vice versa. It is right to say that there was no Holocaust and not get a negative response. The recent case of blocking the accounts of former US President Donald Trump on Twitter and Facebook is explained by the violation of the rules and conditions of social platforms (Ross and Caldwell 6). However, Trump is no different from people who demand respect from the church and atheists; his blocking occurred because the equivalent of the Holocaust cancellation.
Any social network and its users can block or close comments to their content if they consider it offensive or violating the rules. If this does not happen, it can be considered the equivalent of respect for atheists and the church. The media space is a complex matter wherein a person will feel unsafe in any case (Al Khouri). In Russia, a person can send to prison for reposting on Twitter where they do not respect the current government. In France, a person can be beheaded for a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad on Instagram. The owner’s store could be demolished in the USA if he disrespected black people by posting on Facebook.
Why is It Difficult to Find a Compromise Option?
If people want freedom of speech on social platforms, their solution is to create a “public” platform. While social platforms are privately owned, their owners dictate the rules of behavior and block them for non-compliance (Chetty and Alathur 3). Returning to Trump, it can be noted that his followers demand neutrality on social platforms; however, they oppose the idea of public platforms (Ross and Caldwell 9). The policy of double standards significantly complicates the search for consensus on the issue of freedom of speech.
If the platforms are controlled not by private owners but by the state, this can lead to even greater evil, such as the VKontakte social network, which is completely controlled by state structures. Control should take place on the part of the users themselves, who can file a complaint about tweets or posts that hurt their feelings. A special commission consisting of professional and independent analysts will decide the legality of the charges against users. It is one of the main and most effective ways to make freedom of speech real in social networks.
Conclusion
To sum up, the policy of social networks should be stricter in dealing with complaints about content and making fair decisions. It is impossible to achieve freedom of speech in full, but it is quite realistic to create conditions for eco-friendly statements on social platforms that will not hurt other people’s feelings. Twitter has made progress in this regard; however, there are still strict limits on permitted content on other platforms. Social networks need to form a single space for free speech and digital content to allow users to feel freedom.
Works Cited
Al Khouri, Mai. “Social Media and Freedom of Speech: A Suggestion in Preventing Online Abuse.”Medium, 2019.
Chetty, Naganna, and Sreejith Alathur. “Hate speech review in the context of online social networks.” Aggression and violent behavior, vol. 40 no. 1, 2018. pp. 1-21.
Ross, Andrew S., and David Caldwell. “Going Negative: An Appraisal Analysis of the Rhetoric of Donald Trump on Twitter.” Language & communication, vol. 70 no. 1, 2020. pp. 1-15.