The sort of organization that examines restrictions and the opportunities and challenges it encounters in doing so is the center of a widely acknowledged way of thinking about whether it is acceptable to restrict speech. Governmental limitations have a limited scope since the free expression is protected by law and the Constitution. On the other hand, corporations and other private actors have more leeway to act when they contemplate imposing limits. In this sense, a libertarian, pro-property ethos is the opposite of a libertarian, content-neutral ethos (Rauf, 2021). Perhaps it can arbitrarily apply content limits using this strategy.
Therefore, while considering limits, both proponents and opponents should focus more on what private companies may or may not have reasons to ban rather than what they are permitted to do so. If there is anything to be concerned about when social media consider speech and censorship, it is that they have enormous potential to shape conversation but no duty to do so in an official manner (Fuchs, 2018). However, for other people, the fundamental problem is not the rank or identity of the censor, which in certain situations may be more significant, but rather the suppression of the thought itself. The social media corporation, its ethics, and standards have occasionally been violated on a large scale.
Former President Donald Trump’s internet presence was prohibited in the days following the January 6 Capitol revolt. Trump’s social media accounts have been deactivated on other sites. Many of Trump’s most ardent supporters felt the same way. Thousands of Twitter accounts have been suspended for disseminating bogus right-wing material (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Many on the right have been pushed to the Internet’s periphery as a result of these movements. Denying consumers access to social media platforms and other websites on a permanent basis is not a novel notion (Roberts, 2019). For years, conservatives have spoken out against this and other types of social media shaming. However, Trump’s high-profile exit from office has sparked further confusion, discussion, and controversy.
On May 26, 2020, Twitter decided to add a warning symbol and a link to verified information to two of Trump’s tweets for the first time. Three days later, Twitter blocked access to another message from the President, this time threatening fatal violence against demonstrators, in an unprecedented step (Chowdhury et al., 2021). The tweet was hidden behind a warning that it was allegedly glorifying violence, which technically violated Twitter rules. Since then, Twitter has stepped in to cover up or report the ex-President’s tweets on multiple occasions. On June 23, Twitter chose to put a warning label on another Trump post for breaking our rules against abusive behavior, especially for conveying a threat of damage to a specific group (Chowdhury et al., 2021). The decision by Twitter was a watershed moment, escalating into a campaign to restrict Trump supporters and other Republican public figures.
This is one of the most widely discussed issues in the United States and throughout the world since it threatens to undermine the basic cornerstone on which the United States was founded – freedom of expression. As one of the world’s largest social networks, Twitter, which is owned by Facebook, has demonstrated that it is prepared for such actions. This, it is believed, was done to prevent the spread of QAnon theories and fake news, as well as theoretical discrimination and hate crimes (Rauf, 2021). While Republicans are banned on Twitter and Facebook, there are many live profiles supporting major terrorist organizations such as Islamic State or al-Qaida. These accounts are only being filtered after catastrophic events such as terrorist acts in Boston, Paris, and other places. Twitter does not appear to bother identifying or banning accounts in the interim. As part of Facebook’s increasingly global approach and criticism, this case is an interesting example of Twitter’s corporate ethics.
First of all, it is necessary to deconstruct the issue historically, aiming to uncover how Twitter came to this policy. Twitter has never censored politicians’ tweets, claiming that the messages are of public interest (Fuchs, 2018). As a result, prominent celebrities were usually exempt from the regulations and restrictions that apply to regular users. Even when a user uses vulgarity, the site does not take the normal steps to punish them, like as removing a tweet or banning or suspending their account. However, in response to the multiple issues that the online behavior of some leaders, beginning with Trump, would certainly generate, the social network has had to adjust its attitude since 2019. Twitter announced in June 2019 that it had established new restrictions for politicians (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Individuals must be or be eligible for election or appointment to public office and have a verified account to be eligible for this scheme (Rauf, 2021). Even if such officials’ tweets violate the platform’s regulations, such as inciting violence, harassment, or other activities, they are not erased if they have a demonstrable public value. They can, however, be obscured by a warning notice that serves as context and prevents other users from liking or retweeting the item.
This announcement, on the other hand, went almost without any notice, at least initially. Trump, for example, wrote incendiary remarks regarding Democratic Party women in early July, with no pushback from Twitter (Chowdhury et al., 2021). In response to the criticism, the company stated that the tweets do not essentially breach Twitter policy, despite the fact that the network’s rules forbid such tweets. In the terms, the company stated that tweets that insult individuals or contain anything that offends or perpetuates unfavorable stereotypes about this group of people are thus forbidden (Roberts, 2019). After receiving backlash for failing to respond to contentious Trump tweets, Twitter strengthened its system by introducing a modification to its leader policy in the autumn of 2019. The social media platform reaffirmed a concept it introduced in June that there will be no filtering of tweets that violate Twitter rules if they are of public importance, although they will be able to be hidden behind a warning (Chowdhury et al., 2021). This did not essentially change anything in the global social media policy, still being linked to the concept of public good and value.
Later on, Twitter officials cautioned that if there were anything connected to significant infractions, such as terrorist propaganda, explicit and direct threats of violence against individuals, or the disclosure of private information, it would interfere – regardless of the tweet’s intended audience. In this instance politicians’ and celebrities’ public-interest tweets will be handled the same as other tweets, and they may be hidden or erased if required, with fines ranging to account temporary suspension (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Twitter also began to ban or hide sponsored tweets having a campaign or political objective.
The coronavirus outbreak has caused Twitter to reconsider its policy once more. The platform has issued new standards and stated that it would remove information that makes a clear call for users to engage in activities that might endanger their health or well-being. Challenges to local government quarantine measures, promotion of useless Covid-19 therapies, rejecting accepted scientific facts regarding viral transmission, and instigating conduct that might cause fear or disturbance are among the new kinds of disinformation addressed by Twitter (Rauf, 2021). In the case of politicians, the platform emphasizes that tweets that violate these guidelines will not be removed in principle but will instead be reported when they are of public importance, according to previously established norms.
Trump’s tweets touting the benefits of hydroxychloroquine, on the other hand, received no response from Twitter. Meanwhile, in late March, the platform did not hesitate to restrict Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Despite the fury expressed in multiple Democratic news releases, Twitter has consistently refused to delete a series of Trump tweets that made references to several Democratic leaders. The company’s action was solely in response to Trump’s stance on absentee voting. Trump is accused of violating Twitter’s guidelines by using the expression “rigged election” (Rauf, 2021). So, while these tweets were unrelated to the health issue, they were connected to a page produced by a platform that compiled evidence from other media sites and fact-checkers to demonstrate how unjustified were Trump’s comments.
Lastly, Twitter asserted that Donald Trump’s statements breached their policy against endorsing violence, which resulted in a total ban on his account. This rule appears to be designed to stop users from exalting violence when doing so could encourage other users to engage in violent behavior. The company discovered that it is likely that these tweets may incite violence in the future after examining them in the larger context of high election-related tensions and the storming of the Capitol Building (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Twitter has permanently barred President Trump from the service. This looks to be a glaring departure from Twitter’s earlier Trump-related behavior. It might be claimed that his tweets were plainly intended to incite violent protests relating to the capital building storming. While Trump’s earlier tweets were clearly more provocative and subject to the presumption of glorifying violence and possible incitement to hate crimes, the company’s position was quite different in this case.
It is visible that the majority of social media entrepreneurs hold liberal political views. This results in the case when political prejudices influence how the corporations function, notwithstanding what the firms assert. While it is impossible for computer programmers to design algorithms that are fundamentally discriminatory, even algorithms that account for social prejudices may gradually change when preferences are processed (Fuchs, 2018). If asserting that developers’ implicit biases can unintentionally make their algorithms discriminatory, then it stands to reason that these programmers’ political biases will also produce discriminatory algorithms that explicitly support their values and political views.
As more users resort to social media platforms for news, thereby transforming them into news organizations, the political slant of these corporations is becoming increasingly concerning. One of the most obvious instances is the Arab Spring uprisings and the extensive usage of Twitter. A wide-ranging agenda is also being advanced by the Saudi bots now working to protect Mohammed bin Salman (Rauf, 2021). One possibility to think about is accepting prejudice as reality and strictly regulating social media sites. Turning to the most important question, the suppression of freedom of speech and expression, this point of view is, however, losing its relevance.
The key strategic issue in assessing Twitter and its business ethics in relation to its users is assessing the American legislation, namely the First Amendment. A free flow of ideas on all public topics is guaranteed under the First Amendment (Fuchs, 2018). In essence, it states that citizens are sovereign in matters of opinion, political discussion, political propaganda, and political planning and that Congress is only their subordinate agent (Roberts, 2019). This point of view contends that any legislative regulation cannot adequately include the social obligations of a citizen in a free society. Freedom of expression, therefore, holds a particularly protected normative place in the American tradition (Fuchs, 2018). Expression is typically seen as less harmful to other societal aims than action is. Theoretically, freedom of expression can only be curtailed when the utterance may instantly cause detrimental behaviors and when it can demonstrate a direct relationship (Roberts, 2019). This high threshold is challenging to cross, yet it is really feasible to do so with a hazy awareness of the direct link between speech and destructive behavior.
Other Western democracies are more inclined to impose restrictions on hate speech. The atrocities of World War II are still fresh in the minds of most European nations, especially those that were occupied by Nazi Germany or engaged in combat there, and the effectiveness of hate speech is well understood. The encouragement of hatred has resulted in the mass murders of all ‘unwanted groups’ and ‘lower races,’ in addition to the elimination of the Jews (Fuchs, 2018). As a result, hate speech is illegal in many European nations. For instance, in order to reduce risks to its national defense and public order, Spain approved legislation authorizing courts to shut down Spanish websites and prevent access to US online pages (Wirawanda & Wibowo, 2018). To openly express opinions that insult a group of individuals on account of their race or religion is a crime in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch Penal Code (Fuchs, 2018). The Freedom of the Press Act in Sweden also makes it illegal to disparage any group of people by making any reference to their race, skin color, nationality, or ethnic origin (Fuchs, 2018). Unlike the US, European laws are designed strictly, and there is a small room for maneuver.
Some have claimed that the ban imposed by Donald Trump, the case that has garnered the greatest attention, violates the First Amendment (Roberts, 2019). Republicans and Democrats engaged in a heated discussion about this. According to one viewpoint, Twitter has not suppressed free expression but rather restored it by halting the spread of ‘false news.’ The view, on the other side, is that the restriction is merely biased and that free speech has been abolished since it targets Trump supporters and, in particular, Donald Trump.
One of the most essential liberties guaranteed by the Constitution is the First Amendment. However, other individuals contend that only Congress, the states, and institutions connected to Congress or the governments, including state universities, are in charge of upholding the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (Roberts, 2019). Someone’s constitutional right to free speech cannot be violated by private groups (Fuchs, 2018). They contend that social networks, which are owned by private firms, cannot be held liable for infringing a person’s right to free expression. Instead, only the states and Congress have the authority to transgress it (Roberts, 2019). Therefore, Twitter is not violating any of President Trump’s rights by removing him from the site; rather, it is merely exercising its own rights.
From this vantage point, there is no need for the elimination of free expression because this is not a question of constitutional rights but rather a matter of Twitter’s real policy. To stop the issues outlined in its policy, Twitter merely went against its own regulations and business ethics by violating its own rights. The desire to stop violence, false information, and extremism was taken into consideration when doing this. Furthermore, given the disparity in power among those users, it could be justified to place harsher speech limitations on certain users than on others (Fuchs, 2018). A threat from the President of the United States, for instance, may be interpreted quite differently by her victim than a threat from a less influential fellow Twitter user.
This point of view is ambiguous from different perspectives. First of all, demanding that Twitter exercises its own rights reflects that Twitter’s business ethics are inconsistent are enforced only with the growth of public debate. Despite its regulations and regular updates on policies, the company hesitated to take action against Trump’s rhetoric despite the continuous appeals by the Democrat party’s representatives. Only with the rising BLM movement and Democrat’s electoral win looming on the horizon the company enforces its regulations. It became an inconsistent move and revealed how big companies could simply follow the public demand. It is hard to deny that Trump’s Twitter account was one of the most popular in social media’s history, and this was perhaps one of the reasons why the company hesitated to act against it. This once again highlights the weak business ethics of Twitter.
Information freedom and moral and social responsibility might at times be at odds with one another, which can have important commercial ramifications for not only this firm but also for other information and communication enterprises in the future. The obligations made by employers to their employees and by suppliers to customers and consumers are how responsibility is defined in the business world (Conrad, 2018). While many obligations have a legal foundation, others are customary, subject to negotiation depending on the interests and power dynamics of the persons concerned, and driven by business imperatives (Rauf, 2021). Business entities’ decisions to accept and carry out obligations are largely influenced by their long-term self-interest and the maintenance of positive customer relations, while moral values may also be taken into account. In addition to typical economic gains, the company must also take into account how its actions would affect society (Conrad, 2018). Just following the bare minimum of the law, as any decent citizen would, does not make a company socially accountable.
The fundamental rules of business ethics require integrated, sustainable decision-making that considers both potential good and negative outcomes. Corporations must not only consider a variety of stakeholders and interests but also take those interests into account when making choices. Also important is openness, which makes it possible to hold decision-makers accountable for their actions and to take corrective measures to make apologies (Conrad, 2018). A company’s social duty involves ethical requirements in addition to its apparent economic and legal responsibilities (Rauf, 2021). By its very nature, a business must generate a profit, yet society also wants it to follow the law. Adherence to ethical norms is another aspect of ethical duty. From this perspective, a corporation with strong business ethics ought to work to turn a profit while abiding by the law and acting morally as a decent corporate citizen.
The distinctive function of the Internet in contemporary society, as well as the broad appeal and potentially profound impact of a significant amount of Internet content, raise issues regarding the duties of private individuals, governmental entities, and businesses. Any social media platform’s long-term objective is to create a set of operating rules that will balance the opposing objectives of fostering political expression, safeguarding user safety, and maintaining the viability of the platform itself (Fuchs, 2018). Benchmarking could be the best strategy for attaining this objective. The legal ramifications distinguishing the promotion of one or more of these conflicting interests from others in this situation can be taken into account in reference to both comparable and dissimilar settings (Wirawanda & Wibowo, 2018). Platform ethics should be founded on an analysis of the legal and cultural landscape and the interests that are most at stake. Striking a balance between limiting harmful information and adopting other political philosophies is crucial. There would be no idea of balance if videos encouraging terrorism were available online, but posts from right-wing political parties are deleted.
The ethical discussion surrounding the encouragement of freedom of expression is complicated by the fact that social media platforms operate on a global scale. This does not imply, however, that these intermediaries should shirk their moral obligation to advance and uphold the principles of free expression among their users. Of course, one could contend that upholding freedom of speech is less a moral duty than it is a hedonistic pursuit (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Digital intermediaries, however, might function as a role model for society in tolerating and approaching radical and difficult views critically by promoting and upholding the ideals of freedom of expression.
The conventional wisdom is that because provocative viewpoints advance individual and societal development, we should accommodate them. Suppressing an idea that is objectionable but correct in some circumstances can prevent people from learning the truth, even if it is unpopular with most persons (Rauf, 2021). In other instances, the offensive view could be partially accurate and, when paired with the partially accurate public opinion, help to realize the complete truth. Unlimited speech offers the chance to learn from mistakes and make improvements. Twitter, on the other hand, appears to have changed course and suspended any adverse views. The company’s economic principles have caused it to become the most politicized social network to date despite its attempts to be apolitical. What will happen to the organization’s ethics and ban policy in light of the Elon Musk deal is yet unknown. To offer a greater degree of awareness and flexibility in terms of self-expression, they must, however, be completely revamped.
References
Chowdhury, F. A., Saha, D., Hasan, M. R., Saha, K., & Mueen, A. (2021, November). Examining factors associated with Twitter account suspension following 2020 us presidential election. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (pp. 607-612).
Conrad, C. A. (2018). Business ethics – A philosophical and behavioral approach. Springer.
Fuchs, C. (2018). Digital demagogue: Authoritarian capitalism in the age of Trump and Twitter. London: Pluto Press.
Rauf, A. A. (2021). New moralities for new media? Assessing the role of social media in acts of terror and providing points of deliberation for business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(2), 229-251.
Roberts, J. (2019). Trump, Twitter, and the first amendment. Alternative Law Journal, 44(3), 207-213.
Wirawanda, Y., & Wibowo, T. O. (2018). Twitter: expressing hate speech behind tweeting.Profetik: Jurnal Komunikasi, 11(1), 5-11.