Introduction
The development of technology modifies the lives of people around the world, and its effects are clearly seen in the shift in the means of communication. At present, the Internet provides individuals with an opportunity to openly express their views and discuss critical matters regardless of their place of residence. However, this positive aspect of the phenomenon of the websites contributing to a better exchange of information is accompanied by specific drawbacks, which are the increase in intolerance and bigotry. These concepts, as applied to Facebook, Twitter, and other similar companies, are thoroughly examined by Sasha Baron Cohen, who proves the harm of their uncontrolled use. Hence, Cohen explicitly presents the difference between freedom of speech and violation of human rights by describing his personal experience, the policy of social media platforms, and the role of online resources in spreading lies.
Personal Experience
The first factor allowing to view the article as a credible source, which confirms the existence of the mentioned problems in society, is the description of different situations from the author’s life. According to him, the intention to talk to people and “let down their guard and reveal what they actually believe” showed the tendency to consider any erroneous facts as the truth (Cohen 2). This outcome was particularly evident in relation to the information they received from online platforms when talking to others. The case when the author met a person who thought that conspiracy theories spread by Trump were true demonstrates the willingness of American citizens to accept any data (Cohen 3). Since this mechanism works in both social media and physical communication, the former should be adequately regulated.
Official Policy of Social Media
The second circumstance indicating the correctness of the author’s perspective concerning inappropriate actions of social media and their owners is the general policy adopted by them. In this respect, he provides several statements of Mark Zuckerberg, which contradict the considerations of tolerance and credibility and thereby inevitably cause harm to users. First, he claims that the emphasis on the freedom of speech means the access of individuals with ill-minded purposes to the tool allowing them to recruit people (Cohen 3). Consequently, the perception of necessary limits does not correlate with a mere opportunity to express oneself. Second, the alleged repression of these platforms is connected to the spread of data bringing profits rather than people’s safety (Cohen 4). Third, the promoted “diversity of ideas” also depends on users’ intentions, which are rarely positive (Cohen 4). In this way, the arguments presented by Zuckerberg are insufficient for justifying the neglect of adverse outcomes.
Spreading Lies Instead of Establishing Truth
The third condition contributing to the author’s stance and explaining the reasonability of his arguments is the fact that people cannot distinguish truth from lies. In this situation, the problem is connected to the trend for social media to spread primarily falsehoods (Cohen 4). The data available to citizens are not monitored by the popular online platforms, and this circumstance leads to the former’s unawareness of their ignorance (Cohen 4). Indeed, one can hardly be a full-fledged member of society who acts for its benefit when guided by the information received from unverifiable sources, and this case adds to the need to change the policies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Sasha Baron Cohen proves the main point of his article, which is the promotion of intolerance by social media. For this, he refers to his personal experience, improper actions of the platforms’ creators, and the inability of people to determine which facts are accurate. As a result, his position is confirmed by credible data, which underpins his ideas regarding the harm caused by the mentioned resources.
Work Cited
Cohen, Sasha Baron. “The Kind of World We All Want: Maybe, Just Maybe, We Can Stop The Greatest Propaganda Machine in History.” Vital Speeches International, vol. 12, no. 1, 2020, pp. 2-5.