In the article “How to Fix Social Media,” Nicholas Carr suggests that if people want to regulate social media, they should use the traditional legal framework that distinguishes between public and private speech. Public speech is made in public spaces, such as streets and parks, and is subject to government regulation. On the other hand, private speech is made in remote areas, such as homes and workplaces, and is generally not subject to government regulation. Carr acknowledges that public and private discourse is not always clear-cut, especially in social media (Carr 12). While social media platforms are technically private spaces owned by corporations, they often function as public forums where people can express their views to a broad audience. However, the distinction between public and private speech is not always clear-cut, and finding a way to regulate social media in a balanced and nuanced way will require continued dialogue and careful consideration of the different forms of speech on these platforms.
However, as a social media consumer, it can be challenging to distinguish between public and private speech. While users may intend for their posts to be seen only by their friends and family, the reality is that these posts can be shared or reposted by others and potentially reach a much larger audience. Additionally, social media platforms often have different levels of privacy settings, which can further complicate the distinction between public and private speech. For example, a user might have a personal account with only a few followers, but if one of those followers reposts their content, it could be seen by a much larger audience.
Furthermore, one time, I made a post on Facebook about a personal struggle I was going through, intending for it to be seen only by my close friends and family. However, one of my friends shared the post, and before I knew it, it had been shared multiple times and seen by people I did not know. I felt uncomfortable with the idea that my private struggles were now public, but at the same time, I realized that I had made the post on a public platform and could not control how it was shared. It made me realize how important it is to be aware of the privacy settings on social media and to think carefully about what I post, even if it is intended only for a private audience.
I have noticed that social media platforms can be public and private, depending on how users use them. For example, I have a personal Instagram account where I only accept requests from people I know in real life, so it functions more as a private space. But I have also seen people use Instagram to build a public following and share their art or photography with a broader audience. Similarly, I have a private Twitter account to share my thoughts with a small group of friends, but I have seen others use Twitter as a platform for public discourse and activism. The fact that social media platforms can function in both ways makes them so complex and challenging to regulate.
In conclusion, Nicholas Carr’s proposal to regulate social media using the traditional legal framework that distinguishes between public and private speech offers a helpful starting point for balancing free expression and public safety on social media platforms. However, the distinction between public and private speech is not always clear-cut, especially in social media, where posts can be shared and reach a larger audience than originally intended. To draw more precise lines, users must consider the privacy settings on different platforms and examine specific examples of posts or interactions that may blur the line between public and private speech. Ultimately, finding a way to regulate social media in a balanced and nuanced way will require continued dialogue and careful consideration of the different forms of speech on these platforms.
Work Cited
Carr, Nicholas. “How to fix social media.” The New Atlantis, vol. 66, 2021, pp. 3-20.