As our technology continues to develop, the dissemination of information is getting increasingly faster, becoming an incredible and powerful force. As one of the most significant technological elements in the world, social media attracts most of our attention, and the information it distributes has a huge impact on societal wellbeing. However, recently, major social media platforms such as TikTok have started to ban sensitive content. To what extent is it reasonable to control the public on social media? Should Facebook, Google, and TikTok ban certain content, such as terrorist activities or "misinformation"? I believe that prohibiting certain topics such as “terrorist activities” or "misinformation" violates the freedom of speech because banning such content will stop social media from being an active and transparent space for expression. It also leaves no room for the public to debate and discern the validity of information, leaving such decisions to social media companies instead. Furthermore, when it comes to “sensitive content”, the definition is often unclear. In the following, I will argue that the ban is an infringement of the freedom of speech and has several negative consequences.

Banning niche topics unethically violates people’s freedom of speech due to each online user’s unique set of interests [1]. The freedom of speech, as part of the freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter 'ECHR' or 'the Convention'), is a fundamental pillar of a democratic society and a prerequisite for development and individual fulfilment [2]. Accordingly, this freedom applies not only to information or ideas favorably received or regarded as indifferent but also to “communications which are offensive, shocking or disturbing,” as it is subject to Article 10(2) of the Convention [3]. The freedom of expression may, however, be subject to limits per Article 10, which must be interpreted strictly and demonstrated by convincing evidence [4]. Thus, the legitimate aims of these restrictions and interferences are exhaustively defined in the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention, which includes inter “alia, national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of morals, the protection of the reputation or rights of others, the prevention of the disclosure of confidential information and the maintenance of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

The freedom of digital speech in this article refers to the right of a person to express their opinions in a functional public environment (in this case, social media) where discussions need to be heard. When social media platforms ban a specific topic, those who want to express their opinions on that very topic will be deprived of their freedom of speech. 

Limiting freedom of speech will also limit opportunities for different online communities to engage in certain topics they are interested in. For those who enjoy following niche topics such as “military history” or “weapons”, their opportunities for expression are swallowed up by the mechanism of the ban, which is often dictated by Artificial Intelligence. Critical non-hobbyist topics such as mental health, could also be censored and cause more harm to youth in the long term [5]. Pro-Palestinian activists have also experienced things [6]. Such niche content, critical topics, and important issues might be considered “terrorist activities” by mistake.      

The reason why social media became popularized was initially due to its low participation requirements. For example, everyone was able to express themselves based on their opinions and to create a free social space. The rise of internet users and content creators has been historic. According to the data, the number of content creators on social media in the following years will be more than twice that of online text creators in 2023 [7]. This is enough to indicate that most people are privy to creating original content and expressing their true opinions on social media. At the same time, the number of global social media users has reached 4.88 billion, with over 60 percent of residents using social media [8]. As the most popular social platform, social media platforms have an obligation to host an open environment for all kinds of topics. Therefore, there is no doubt that depriving the right to proliferate a certain topic on social media is also depriving the freedom of speech. 

Furthermore, the platform's control over special topics may result in a gradual decline of public participation due to a digital environment non-conducive to discussion. As a social activity, online discussions are a meaningful pastime precisely because it provides an opportunity to change reality. Hence, if digital participation is limited, ideas cannot proliferate and generate discussions or debates and further create an impact on society. Bans may cause us to neglect the most important issues of our life, particularly those that require civic engagement. If online users cannot participate in online discourse, it is unlikely that they will understand themselves to be responsible in changing the outcome of the topics they discuss.

For example, sex education was often considered a taboo. But sex education, especially online content promoting sex education, creates a more positive impact on society. It teaches young people to educate and inform themselves about safer sexual behaviors. However, since sex is a largely considered taboo topic, sex education can be limited by content filters and be deemed as inappropriate. The controlled content may also result in the public uninformed about sexual health. For example, the current lack of sex education in China is worsened by social media policies that ban or severely limit any discussion of it [9]. 

The controversial nature Chinese politics has also led to banning political discussions on social media. In some situations, the government even openly advocates for public figures not to express political views. China’s ban on content is often associated with the label of “insecurity,” but in fact it is a violation of the freedom of speech. This not only prohibits the public from giving opinions, but also avoids activating more public discussion and civic engagement on often important social issues. Neglecting issues that are closely related to us can lead to a lack of democracy and justice as well as a lack of understanding of the social environment in which we live [10]. In this era, not only are relatively obscure laws receiving little attention, but people also have little understanding of our closely connected economic policies and political updates. This is because the internet control mechanism deprives us of the ability to think independently and the power to make choices for ourselves, which is the most terrible effect that bans on niche topics brings to us.

Finally, depriving a digital environment from robust and genuine discussion can bring psychological pressure to social media users and have a negative impact during the discussion process. This will result in a more inactive discussion environment and a sense of threat. For instance, whenever we encounter topics that are prohibited from discussion, we often leave an impression that our free speech is suppressed. When we feel that we lose the free speech rights that society is supposed to guarantee, we feel less involved in the society. There will be less cohesion between members of the society. Eventually, that would  harm the public social environment and the more vibrant development of society. 

On top of the rights to expression and healthy public participation which I have discussed, social media companies also have a stake in creating bans. Social media companies may have their own biases when formulating bans on content. As an example, social media companies can profit from specific topics, such as inciting gender opposition and prohibiting discussions on laws that truly concern gender. Another example that showcases the potential impact of social media companies is the world's largest social media platform, Facebook. It has revealed such scandals of using content bias for taking advantage of the people. Mark Zuckerberg has been sued for illegally using user privacy information to write algorithms and trade for profit [11]. Both examples show how major social media companies unfairly use the power of prohibition to profit from them.

Another possibility is that social media companies have their own political stance and therefore make unfair decisions in creating push notification algorithms and banning topics. For example, Taiwan has legalized same-sex marriage, but same-sex marriage in mainland China is not legally recognized [12]. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that China implements a marriage system of "freedom of marriage, monogamy, and gender equality". In mainland China, it is currently prohibited to discuss the legalization of LGBTQ+ marriages and romantic relationships, and even all mainstream social media will prohibit the display of such intimate behaviors. This prohibition is a vague attitude that turns what should have been a serious discussion into an unseemly trick. Therefore, certain LGBTQ+ groups will be marginalized. This is a topic prohibited by the platform due to political factors. This will result in the LGBTQ+ community having no way to speak out and not having the same rights as others.

Regardless of the purpose for which a social media company intentionally bans a topic, it is easy to achieve this goal by setting up a system of bans. However, the ban is executed by AI programs, and does not have the ability to evaluate the correctness of what is done during the execution process. This will result in no one supervising the behavior of social media companies during the execution of bans.

In recent years, our Internet landscape has changed significantly. A growing number of social media companies are trying to use AI to control or even ban content because some of it would be considered "terrorist activity." I contend that this is a violation of freedom of speech. It deprives a certain social topic of the opportunity to be discussed and debated. It could encourage social media companies to manipulate public opinions. I believe that everyone should have space to express themselves and create their own content. When discussing how to manage thoughts and public opinion, such as filtering certain content, we must consider principles of rights. We should not put these debates aside just because there are temporary solutions that suppress tricky online situations. Instead, I believe that good education and guidance are the only reasonable way to create a sensible online environment for the public. 

 References

[1] U. Peri, “Freedom of expression as the cornerstone of democracy,” International Journal of Arts and Sciences, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 483-7, 2010.

[2] K. David, “Attacking hate speech under Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights,” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 644-5, 2007.

[3] Soares v. Portugal no. 79,972/12, judgment of 21 June 2016 (Soares judgment), para 38; Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11,882/10, judgment of 20 October 2015, para 87; Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56,925/08, judgment of 29 March 2016, para 48, Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69,698/01, judgment of 10 December 2007, para 101; Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48,876/08, judgment of 22 April 2013, para 100.

[4] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, “European convention on human rights - Article 10,” FRA. https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/ european-convention-human-rights-article-10

[5] C. Zhang, G. Zaleski, J. Kailley, K. Teng, M. English, A. Riminchan, and J. Robillard, “Debate: Social media content moderation may do more harm than good for youth mental health,” Child and Adolescent Mental Health, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 104–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12689

[6] H. Ashraf, “Social media ‘war on terror’ unfairly censors Palestinians and Arabic speakers,” The Century Foundation, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://tcf.org/content/commentary/social-media-war-on-terror-unfairly-censors-palestinians-and-arabic-speakers/

[7] Jimu News, “There are over 22 million online writers in China, and those born in the 1990s have become the backbone of their creative work,” Jima News. [Online]. Available: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/si?d=1762956470593 100154