The introduction of the internet seems so long ago, it’s hard to think of a time where we didn’t have it. As soon as it came out, it opened an avenue of possibilities for how we communicated, which inevitably brought just as many problems.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has arguably shaped the internet into exactly what it is today, and also presents a good basis for the changes brought by the internet to reshape America’s right to expression. The internet brought along with it social media which then gave rise to tech giants who now run some of our most used methods of communication. While individual actions definitely should be held liable for their consequences, section 230 and its protection of liability for these said giants is arguably what has caused much of the tension and division we face now.
This piece of policy has created a protection for them even in instances where their negligence or actions have caused immense damage. I think the greatest example of this would be Meta Inc.’s involvement in the Rohingya Genocide in Myanmar where an amnesty report found that not only did they fail to remove and restict hate content aimed at the Rohingya minority in the country, they activley encouraged. The conflict has been active for quite a long time, before Facebook was even a thing, but the evidence shows their involvement helped lead to the Rohingya massacre in 2017.
The internet’s creation and its subsequent policy that has helped to build it, I would argue has created an environment where people are allowed to communicate freely, but leaves the tech companies freedom to act as they want to push their own goals. It’s created an attention economy, where these companies are more incentivized to work for online activity on their platforms, instead of creating a healthy and safe space of communication.
This attention economy has also reshaped our own individual behavior, and unfortunately the only way forward at combatting social media companies (in my eyes) is by regulating our own behaviors and calling out behaviors via cancel culture. I would propose a sort of social contract on social media, one that would promote the impact of one’s speech, privacy rights, and the freedom to express opinion.
This would then require a hierarchy of values, not rights, in order to avoid “cruel and unusual” punishment. I only include values because when it comes to rights I don’t believe any of them are inherently more important, they’re just of higher focus depending on the situation we’re being faced with. Values on the other hand are inherently a hierarchy, because humans have the tendency to organize into hierarchies. There are certain values that each of us consider more important, and we generally have a good idea of what values we expect of strangers to consider them a good member of society.
