• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

NetFamilyNews.org

Kid tech intel for everybody

Show Search
Hide Search
  • Home
  • Youth
  • Parenting
  • Literacy
  • Safety
  • Policy
  • Research
  • About NetFamilyNews.org
    • Supporters
    • Anne Collier’s Bio
    • Copyright
    • Privacy

The global free speech experiment for participants of all ages

May 29, 2013 By Anne 6 Comments

We don’t hear about it much, but an important, historically unprecedented experiment is being conducted in Internet-connected schools, libraries, homes and workplaces in every country under every sort of government on the planet. It’s about how to protect people and their right of free expression – e.g., children and other protected classes – at the same time in social media. It’s unprecedented because this is a medium that can’t be regulated in any traditional way because it is global and grassroots (increasingly user-produced) and embraces about as many perspectives as there are people using it.

[I mentioned schools. I should qualify that. Because many schools still block social media, they can’t be the communities of guided practice that they ideally are for young social media users. Students can actively participate in this discussion – consciously practice both exercising free speech and respecting others’ right to exercise it – only when their schools support the use of social media in the classroom (e.g., blogs, wikis, Twitter, Google Docs, virtual worlds, apps, Facebook, etc.). Citizenship is best learned through practice rather than in the abstract, so I hope more and more schools will not only allow their students to join and participate in the discussion but also work with them as key participants in it in their school communities.]

“The most significant free-speech debates today … take place online,” writes George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen in the New Republic, in places like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube which get requests every day from all over the planet to delete content that from one perspective is considered harmful and from another often considered a protest or parody or “controversial humor.” In this social media environment, Rosen writes, “the risks that overregulation will open the door to suppression of political expression are exponentially higher than in the offline world.” He doesn’t just point to China, Russia and Iran but also to the possibility of over-regulation from Europe: “Because of its historical experience with fascism and communism, Europe sees the suppression of hate speech as a way of promoting democracy.” He seems to be saying that Europe in effect thinks democracy means decency more than free speech, but “decency” defined by who? European democracies are “contemplating broad new laws that would require Internet companies to remove posts that offend the dignity of an individual, group, or religion.”

Whose rights determined by whom?

That sounds nice, right? But think about it: Who decides for the planet? A government? Rosen cites the example of Turkey, where it’s illegal to insult the country’s founder Kemal Ataturk. But Greek football fans did just that in some YouTube videos, and the Turkish government demanded that YouTube take them down. YouTube did block access to the videos in Turkey but not the whole world, so the Turkish government blocked its citizens’ access to YouTube for two years. The point, here, is not that few people understand the significance of other countries’ laws or cultural norms; it’s that few governments understand that a global medium is not designed to preserve the order in a single country or the rights of a single citizenry. For that matter, few users understand, or at least think about, this either. Also, sometimes we get to the social good by working through things democratically, with all kinds of people exercising their free-speech rights, often completely disagreeing with one another. [Likewise at school, students learn digital citizenship by going through this process in digital environments with the unique, focused guidance that school ideally provides.]

Not that “social media” was designed with any of this – including Turkish laws – in mind. But here we are, figuring all this out in user-generated social media now and, because media are global and social-media services are too, it falls to media companies who care about the issue to protect free speech. “Given their tremendous size and importance as platforms for free speech,” Rosen writes, “companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Twitter shouldn’t try to be guardians of what [Oxford and New York Universities professor Jeremy] Waldron calls a ‘well-ordered society’; instead, they should consider themselves the modern version of Oliver Wendell Holmes’s fractious marketplace of ideas – democratic spaces where all values, including civility norms, are always open for debate.”

Social media’s ‘deciders’

A fascinating part of this story is about the teams of content policy people at Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Yahoo nicknamed “The Deciders.” Rosen describes the work of the Anti-Cyberhate Working Group they formed to work through the complexities of content policy – and how to make decisions fairly, efficiently and consistently under ridiculous conditions. By ridiculous, I mean, for example, that people upload 300 million photos and 2.5 billion messages to Facebook per day, NPR recently reported, and I just learned from Twitter that its users send 1 billion tweets every 2.5 days.

But there’s no uniformity in these companies’ approaches to content. Facebook’s resembles workplace norms and policies, according to NPR – “the kinds of rules that govern what you can say to colleagues at lunch” – while Twitter “calls itself the free speech wing of the free speech party and models its approach on the US Constitution.” Twitter, Rosen says, “wants to be a platform for democracy rather than civility.”

NPR cites him as saying that – by deleting content based on their community standards (usually called Terms of Service) – companies are “judging what is and isn’t offensive,” and they shouldn’t be in the business of doing that. Others argue, of course, that they should because, after all, they’re just companies, not protectors of free speech. It’s not that Rosen doesn’t agree with the latter but these digital spaces now represent the global “marketplace of ideas” to an unprecedented degree. According to NPR, he says “Facebook has every right to determine for itself what speech to allow and what to ban.” It’s just that he “hopes the company will preserve at least the possibility for anonymous actors to say politically controversial – even occasionally offensive – things online.”

The child-protection challenge

Things get even more complicated when children occupy the same spaces as adults. It’s even more difficult to protect minors and free speech simultaneously in global social media, and US courts have been unprecedentedly challenged by legislation such as the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998, and the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000 to name only a few federal laws they’ve struggled with. The giant social media services were not designed for children under 13 (though nobody’s completely sure of the origins of that minimum age for the US’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act [COPPA], passed before there were social media), and there are millions of U13s in social media services, most of them with their parents’ knowledge or even help (see this) – logically because their children’s experiences in social media are largely positive.

What the US courts and four national task forces on child online protection, including two I’ve had the honor of serving on, seem to keep arriving at is that, in a global, multicultural medium, the child end of the protecting-free-speech-and-children equation is best covered through education in homes and schools and a large diverse set of protection tools chosen and implemented by the adults who know what’s best for them, child by child – because we’re slowly, collectively coming to understand four other things about social media:

  • how individual social-media use is
  • how embedded it is in, not separate from, our everyday lives (the actual context of what happens in social-media services, not the sites themselves)
  • how – because the content is both individually and socially produced by the users of these media companies – privacy, safety and security are also social (maintained and shared by users as much as the services) as well as personal
  • how fluid social-media use is (users can move on, set up accounts and post elsewhere if they don’t like restrictions placed on them, so regulation has an impact on companies, not so much content or users)
  • how safety and privacy in social media are collective as well as individual and are maintained in a distributed way by all parties concerned (users for themselves, peers for each other, their online and offline communities, companies and governments).

Self, peer & community protection

What all of that says to me – and I think to anybody who’s been observing this experiment for a decade and a half – is that, where we’re talking about protecting people rather than free speech, truly effective protection can no longer come only from giant, impersonal entities such as governments and global companies. Protection of children in particular (because they’re participants and producers, constantly changing and in a highly experimental phase of their lives) works from the inside out. It’s best developed with the people closest to them, from parents to other family members to people who care about them at school and on out through the concentric circles, and it’s a learning process. It must involve children themselves, because internal factors such as resilience, mindfulness or critical thinking, and a moral compass or inner guidance system are critical.

And so the experiment continues, hopefully with our children’s participation, as we all find ourselves revisiting what democracy and free speech mean, now, in lives that happen in global, social digital spaces too.

Related links

  • This month Facebook was the sixth company to join the Stockholm-based Global Network Initiative, which “strives to protect global human rights by working with technology companies, civil society, academics, and investors to help companies responsibly navigate the increasing number of complex laws and government requests to censor content and access personal information,” according to Leslie Harris of the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology.
  • About what teens have to say about handling inappropriate content in social media
  • “Anti-social media companies will be obsolete”
  • “Good move: Game company takes down cruel ad campaign”
  • “How crowd-reporting could actually be a bad thing”
  • “A social-media company’s social-emotional learning”
  • “Of free speech in global social media”
  • “SOPA & citizenship in a digital age”
  • “Teens, social media & trolls: Toxic mix”
  • Back in 2009: “Digital risk, digital citizenship”
  • About the fear factor: “Net-related ‘juvenoia’,” part 1 about why the fear is overrated and part 2 about why we’re so afraid

Disclosure: As co-director of ConnectSafely.org, I’m a member of Facebook’s Safety Advisory Board.

Share Button

Filed Under: Law & Policy, Parenting, Social Media Tagged With: Facebook, First Amendment, free speech, Jeffrey Rosen, Social Media, twitter, Yahoo, YouTube

Reader Interactions

Trackbacks

  1. The Unsafety Net: How Social Media Turned Against Women | River Bend Tack says:
    June 9, 2015 at 10:38 am

    […] administration’s Online Safety and Technology Working Group, “We are in the middle of a global free speech experiment.” On the one hand, these online images and words are bringing awareness to a longstanding […]

    Reply
  2. The unsafety net: How social media turned against women says:
    November 21, 2014 at 10:46 am

    […] administration’s Online Safety and Technology Working Group, “We are in the middle of a global free speech experiment.” On the one hand, these online images and words are bringing awareness to a longstanding […]

    Reply
  3. The Unsafety Net: How #SocialMedia Turned Against Women #Vaw | Kractivism says:
    October 16, 2014 at 9:54 pm

    […] administration’s Online Safety and Technology Working Group, “We are in the middle of a global free speech experiment.” On the one hand, these online images and words are bringing awareness to a longstanding […]

    Reply
  4. The Unsafety Net: How Social Media Turned Against Women | Social Media Creation says:
    October 11, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    […] administration’s Online Safety and Technology Working Group, “We are in the middle of a global free speech experiment.” On the one hand, these online images and words are bringing awareness to a longstanding […]

    Reply
  5. The Unsafety Net: How Social Media Turned Against Women | Social Traffic Hub says:
    October 10, 2014 at 9:03 pm

    […] administration’s Online Safety and Technology Working Group, “We are in the middle of a global free speech experiment.” On the one hand, these online images and words are bringing awareness to a longstanding […]

    Reply
  6. The unsafety net: How social media turned against women « Press List says:
    October 10, 2014 at 4:10 am

    […] administration’s Online Safety and Technology Working Group, “We are in the middle of a global free speech experiment.” On the one hand, these online images and words are bringing awareness to a longstanding […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

NFN in your in-box:

Anne Collier


Bio and my...
2016 TEDx Talk on
the heart of digital citizenship

Subscribe to my
RSS feed
Follow me on Twitter or even better:
NEW: Follow me on MASTODON!
Friend me on Facebook
See me on YouTube

IMPORTANT RESOURCES

Our (DIGITAL) PARENTING BASICS: Safety + Social
NAMLE, the National Association for Media Literacy Education
CASEL.org & the 5 core social-emotional competencies of SEL
Center for Democracy & Technology
Center for Innovative Public Health Research
Childnet International
Committee for Children
Congressional Internet Caucus Academy
ConnectSafely.org
Control Shift: a pivotal book for Internet safety
Crimes Against Children Research Center
Crisis Textline
Cyber Civil Rights Initiative's Revenge Porn Crisis Line
Cyberwise.org
danah boyd's blog and book about networked youth
Disconnected, Carrie James's book on digital ethics
FOSI.org's Good Digital Parenting
The research of Global Kids Online
The Good Project at Harvard's School of Education
If you watch nothing else: "Parenting in a Digital Age" TED Talk by Prof. Sonia Livingstone
The International Bullying Prevention Association
Let Grow Foundation
Making Caring Common
Raising Digital Natives, author Devorah Heitner's site
Renee Hobbs at the Media Education Lab
MediaSmarts.ca
The New Media Literacies
Report of the Aspen Task Force on Learning & the Internet and our guide to Creating Trusted Learning Environments
The Ruler Approach to social-emotional learning (Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence)
Sources of Strength
"Young & Online: Perspectives on life in a digital age" from young people in 26 countries (via UNICEF)
"Youth Safety on a Living Internet": 2010 report of the Online Safety & Technology Working Group (and my post about it)

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Why I struggle mightily with the new Utah law
  • A solution for ‘awful but lawful’
  • New global service for getting nudes off the Internet
  • Then there’s the flip side of ChatGPT
  • For SID 2023: What youth want ‘online safety’ to teach
  • ChatGPT for media literacy training
  • Future safety: Content moderators and digital grassroots justice
  • Mental health 2023, Part 1: Youth on algorithms

Footer

Welcome to NetFamilyNews!

Founded as a nonprofit public service in 1999, NetFamilyNews quickly became the “community newspaper” of a vital interest community of subscribers in more than 50 countries. Site and newsletter became a blog in the early 2000s. Nowadays, you can subscribe in the box to the right to receive articles in your in-box as they're posted – or look for tweets, posts on our Facebook page, and key commentaries from Anne on her page at Medium.com. She welcomes your comments, follows and shares!

Categories

  • Home
  • Youth
  • Parenting
  • Literacy
  • Safety
  • Policy
  • Research

ABOUT

  • About NFN
  • Supporters
  • Anne Collier’s Bio
  • Copyright
  • Privacy

Search

Subscribe



THANKS TO NETFAMILYNEWS.ORG's SUPPORTER HOMESCHOOL CURRICULUM.
Copyright © 2023 ANNE COLLIER. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.