Big Tech's Tightening Grip on Internet Speech

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02874v1
• Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 13:47:12 GMT
• Title: Big Tech's Tightening Grip on Internet Speech
• Authors: Gregory M. Dickinson
• Abstract summary: Control over online speech lies in the hands of a select few. Platforms have their own interests at stake. With control over online speech so centralized, online outcasts are left with few avenues for expression.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Online platforms have completely transformed American social life. They have democratized publication, overthrown old gatekeepers, and given ordinary Americans a fresh voice in politics. But the system is beginning to falter. Control over online speech lies in the hands of a select few -- Facebook, Google, and Twitter -- who moderate content for the entire nation. It is an impossible task. Americans cannot even agree among themselves what speech should be permitted. And, more importantly, platforms have their own interests at stake: Fringe theories and ugly name-calling drive away users. Moderation is good for business. But platform beautification has consequences for society's unpopular members, whose unsightly voices are silenced in the process. With control over online speech so centralized, online outcasts are left with few avenues for expression. Concentrated private control over important resources is an old problem. Last century, for example, saw the rise of railroads and telephone networks. To ensure access, such entities are treated as common carriers and required to provide equal service to all comers. Perhaps the same should be true for social media. This Essay responds to recent calls from Congress, the Supreme Court, and academia arguing that, like common carriers, online platforms should be required to carry all lawful content. The Essay studies users' and platforms' competing expressive interests, analyzes problematic trends in platforms' censorship practices, and explores the costs of common-carrier regulation before ultimately proposing market expansion and segmentation as an alternate pathway to avoid the economic and social costs of common-carrier regulation.

Related papers

• Understanding Divergent Framing of the Supreme Court Controversies: Social Media vs. News Outlets [56.67097829383139]
  We focus on the nuanced distinctions in framing of social media and traditional media outlets concerning a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. We observe significant polarization in the news media's treatment of affirmative action and abortion rights, whereas the topic of student loans tends to exhibit a greater degree of consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T06:40:21Z)
• Analyzing Norm Violations in Live-Stream Chat [49.120561596550395]
  We study the first NLP study dedicated to detecting norm violations in conversations on live-streaming platforms. We define norm violation categories in live-stream chats and annotate 4,583 moderated comments from Twitch. Our results show that appropriate contextual information can boost moderation performance by 35%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T05:58:27Z)
• A User-Driven Framework for Regulating and Auditing Social Media [94.70018274127231]
  We propose that algorithmic filtering should be regulated with respect to a flexible, user-driven baseline. We require that the feeds a platform filters contain "similar" informational content as their respective baseline feeds. We present an auditing procedure that checks whether a platform honors this requirement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T17:53:34Z)
• On the rise of fear speech in online social media [7.090807766284268]
  Fear speech, as the name suggests, attempts to incite fear about a target community. This article presents a large-scale study to understand the prevalence of 400K fear speech and over 700K hate speech posts collected from Gab.com.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-18T02:46:49Z)
• Having your Privacy Cake and Eating it Too: Platform-supported Auditing of Social Media Algorithms for Public Interest [70.02478301291264]
  Social media platforms curate access to information and opportunities, and so play a critical role in shaping public discourse. Prior studies have used black-box methods to show that these algorithms can lead to biased or discriminatory outcomes. We propose a new method for platform-supported auditing that can meet the goals of the proposed legislation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-18T17:32:35Z)
• Hate Speech Classification Using SVM and Naive BAYES [0.0]
  Many countries have developed laws to avoid online hate speech. But as online content continues to grow, so does the spread of hate speech. It is important to automatically process the online user contents to detect and remove hate speech.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-21T17:15:38Z)
• The Quest for Development: When Social Media-Brokered Political Power Encounters Political 'Flak Jackets' [0.0]
  Social media provides an extended space for collective action, as netizens leverage it as a tool for claim-making and for demanding the dividends of governance. Political regimes often greet expanding use of social media with censorship, which netizens often have to contend with. This research is conducted on the basis of key informant interviews with voices against social media censorship in Nigeria since the inception of Nigeria's ruling government in 2015.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-22T14:45:22Z)
• News consumption and social media regulations policy [70.31753171707005]
  We analyze two social media that enforced opposite moderation methods, Twitter and Gab, to assess the interplay between news consumption and content regulation. Our results show that the presence of moderation pursued by Twitter produces a significant reduction of questionable content. The lack of clear regulation on Gab results in the tendency of the user to engage with both types of content, showing a slight preference for the questionable ones which may account for a dissing/endorsement behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-07T19:26:32Z)
• Capitol (Pat)riots: A comparative study of Twitter and Parler [37.277566049536]
  On 6 January 2021, a mob of right-wing conservatives stormed the USA Capitol Hill interrupting the session of congress certifying 2020 Presidential election results. Immediately after the start of the event, posts related to the riots started to trend on social media. Our report presents a contrast between the trending content on Parler and Twitter around the time of riots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-18T07:46:14Z)
• An Early Look at the Parler Online Social Network [10.683059193632943]
  Parler is an "alternative" social network promoting itself as a service that allows to "speak freely and express yourself openly" This paper presents a dataset of 183M Parler posts made by 4M users between August 2018 and January 2021, as well as metadata from 13.25M user profiles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-11T11:23:19Z)
• Echo Chambers on Social Media: A comparative analysis [64.2256216637683]
  We introduce an operational definition of echo chambers and perform a massive comparative analysis on 1B pieces of contents produced by 1M users on four social media platforms. We infer the leaning of users about controversial topics and reconstruct their interaction networks by analyzing different features. We find support for the hypothesis that platforms implementing news feed algorithms like Facebook may elicit the emergence of echo-chambers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T20:00:27Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.