Cedars, Spring 2021

Spring 2021 10 By Lydia Switzer T he 45th president of the United States is permanently banned from Twitter. Twitter’s suspension of former President Donald Trump was fuel for the fire of outrage surrounding tech companies’ alleged censorship. Banning accounts, demonetizing videos, and suppressing entire news stories are all ways in which tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google (through YouTube) interfere with information online. The vast majority of people on social media use social media without considering the filtering algorithm that delivers their content. They post photos on Instagram, they send Tweets on Twitter, they provide life updates on Facebook, and maybe upload the occasional video to YouTube. However, recent events, such as Twitter’s ban of former President Trump, have brought questions of bias and censorship to the forefront of political discussion. Social media companies have the ability to shape the information presented on that platform. Inevitably, this could result in unfairly applied standards, leading some to claim that incidents like the banning of former President Trump from Twitter are an assault on democracy. In reality, however, this isn’t too different from how traditional media has always operated. Dr. Mark Caleb Smith, chair of Cedarville University’s Department of History and Government, pointed out that traditional news outlets make decisions regarding what is and is not newsworthy on a regular basis. “Newspapers, television outlets, any kind of media outlet that filters information is going to make editorial judgments,” Smith said. “There’s really no way around that.” But isn’t free speech one of the foundational principles of this country? What about First Amendment rights? What does the Constitution have to say about online speech? According to John Hart, general counsel for Cedarville, the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech is a protection against government . Without a compelling reason for doing so, the government may not restrict speech. Since social media isn’t a public agency, as Smith pointed out, users of social media don’t have unrestricted speech protection. “It is not a violation of First Amendment rights to have a social media platform limit your access or take down your posts or even freeze you out of the site altogether,” Smith said. This means that social media companies are constitutionally free to suppress, ban, or otherwise regulate any material that is presented through their platform. Those who sign up for social media are implicitly or explicitly agreeing to that company’s terms of service, and are subject to any regulatory or disciplinary actions taken by that company. Hart likened these terms of service agreements to the agreements that students and faculty at Cedarville must sign to be part of the university. Cedarville is able to require certain behavior from those who willingly agree to its rules. Those who would rather not comply are free SAFEKEEPING OR GATEKEEPING? NO Are social media companies censoring? And is that OK? BEYOND THIS POINT WRONG OPINIONS