Discover Top Posts Tagged with #socialcontracttheory

The Ethics of Internet Censorship (2/2/2021)

What did the founding fathers intend when they passed the First Amendment that guarantees the freedom of expression? They intended it to be a protection for citizens from the government for their beliefs and opinions. But, in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted, the internet did not exist and therefore was not the primary avenue of communication that it is today. It also meant that this amendment does not specify the protection of expression online.

The internet is a prolific means for individuals to express themselves through social media platforms. But, this convenience also gives rise to controversial topics such as whether it is ethical for the information collected about you to be sold to other people. However, this is only one half of the major problem derived from major companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter. They have the power to expose the data they have collected on individuals, but they also have the power to inhibit the expression of those same people. Every year, I see more and more censorship instances in which major social media companies block posts or add warnings to content posted by users of their software. It has increasingly become an avenue for these companies to push for certain ideologies and oppress contrary views. It is no doubt that companies, such as Twitter, have used their influence to control what their users can see on their platforms. An article by Townhall dives into more specifically how big tech companies use their power to suppress conservatives. These acts consist of things that are seemingly minor, such as adding “fact-check” warnings to conservative posts, but not liberal ones. It makes sense that a company who wants liberals elected to office would have the incentive to use a series of propaganda to influence elections. But, is this biased censorship ethical?

It is true that by using the large tech companies’ services, the users are agreeing to their terms and conditions. So, you may think the company should certainly have the power to control what information is appropriate for their platforms. However, with the size and influence these companies have on the public eye and the ability for individuals to express their first amendment rights, it becomes much more complicated whether it is ethical for companies to exercise control over expression within their platform, especially since many would consider these companies to have monopoly power.

Let’s consider this situation under the Social Contract Theory. Assuming that the right to freedom of expression is an implicit agreement amongst the society, any actions that impede this right would be unethical as the individual preventing others’ freedom of speech are not bearing the societal burden of having to accept that other have the right to disagree. The problem with this situation however, is that the Social Contract Theory expects the government to enforce the protection of freedom of expression, which they have not done to a full enough extend on the internet. Society would better coexist if individuals listened to each other and accepted disagreement and discussion on controversial topics. The existence of biased censorship breaks down the ability of individuals to have these necessary discussions. Therefore, because of the social unrest caused by the censorship, I believe this theory would deem the censorship unethical.

Looking at the situation from the lens of Kantianism reaches a similar conclusion. In Kantianism, people must be treated as an end, not a means to an end, and rules must be universal. In the circumstances of censorship of specifically right-leaning individuals, both expectations of Kantianism are violated. Censoring only, or almost exclusively, conservatives means that the rule of maintaining truthful and non-misleading information is violated by bias and thus the rule is not universal. Furthermore, censoring one side of the political spectrum is also a means in which a company can impose their viewpoints on the public. Thus, they are using these censored individuals as a means to an end (or to promote their political agenda). Both of these reasons support that although the platform belongs to the company, their censorship of conservatives is unethical.

Of course, content that is in the form of bullying or is otherwise dangerous should be taken down and that is a different problem to address entirely. Nevertheless, in the circumstance that opinion or perspective based information is censored, we must ensure that it is censored uniformly across all ideologies or not at all. Otherwise, the censorship is unethical.

#Ethics #Kantianism #SocialContractTheory #Censorship

#socialcontracttheory the unborn and young never can agree nor disagree to the world of which they’re not architects, but they may be subject to them due to the decisions of their ancestors legacy. https://www.instagram.com/joebon890070/p/BtzW0A8gptY/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1hoaux99r272y

#socialcontracttheory