Free speech in the digital age
Bad algorithms, dueling platforms, government decisions
Last week was quite dramatic for Substackers on the Twittersphere. After Substack announced the launch of a social media feature called Substack Notes, Twitter decided to put up a blockade around Substack links. For a few days, you couldn’t even search for “Substack” on Twitter.
I have mixed feelings about the tech beef.
The most obvious takeaway is that Twitter is not a reliable platform for free speech. The CEO is impulsive and has shown a tendency to retaliate against perceived enemies.
Because Twitter is a large platform used by many thought leaders and journalists, there’s a good argument to be made that it constitutes a “town square” worthy of First Amendment-styled moderation.
When Elon Musk purchased Twitter, his stated goal was transparency and fairness in the name of free speech. Online conservatives were optimistic that Elon would take positive steps to correct the ideological manipulations of the previous operators.
As it stands now, I feel much less confident about the fairness of New Twitter than I did about Old Twitter. The old guard was a group of progressive-minded content moderation busybodies; the new guard is arbitrarily malicious.
However, I also feel uneasy about Substack’s venture into the world of social media. What I like about Substack is that it operates from a different logic than the attention economy. Substack connects readers and writers directly, without the interference of third-party algorithms. Substack promotes long-form thinking as opposed to sensationalized reactions.
One Substacker wrote on Notes,
I write long essays and I hate interacting. That’s why I left all other social media and came to Substack in the first place.
If Substack Notes is a Twitter-alternative, then I hope Substack can retain its essence instead of getting warped by the same bad habits as the other social platforms.
Despite my qualms, Substack Notes will probably maintain a high level of decency compared to its competitors. The Substack community tends to be thoughtful and gregarious, and Substack continues to rely on paid subscriptions, rather than advertisements, as a source of revenue.
With the array of digital platforms and social networks available, we live in the heyday of free speech. Never has it been easier to share your two cents with others. The quality of our thoughts might be diminished as a function of the scrambled mess of information we put into our brains, but we can share our thoughts anyway.
As much as people might want platforms like Twitter or Facebook to adhere to First Amendment principles, there’s nothing requiring them to do so. Platforms can block or boost different types of content. They can ban links from competing platforms. Social media companies are companies, not government entities.
TikTok is a trickier subject.
The Chinese-owned platform is already banned on many government devices in the United States, including in Arizona. Montana just passed a bill banning TikTok for the entire state.
Congress is weighing a nationwide ban of the platform.
The Dispatch, a center-right newspaper that started out on Substack before moving to its own website, recently reported on the logistics of a nationwide TikTok ban.
A ban would require app stores, internet service providers (ISPs), and computer and phone software providers to take steps to block access to TikTok.
The fear is that China could use TikTok algorithms to manipulate the American public, or that they could use the app’s data to spy on Americans.
Even though I recognize the dilemma of allowing a foreign adversary to control such an influential social network within our shores, I worry about the precedent of the government making it illegal to provide access to a specific platform. Today’s politicians are not exactly paragons of virtue when it comes to upholding the principles of our constitutional republic.
Additionally, I worry about the algorithms themselves. TikTok is one of the fastest growing apps for young people because the algorithm brilliantly hacks the mind’s attention. This can be used for “benign” reasons, like profit. But if young people are hooked on TikTok to the detriment of more edifying experiences, is the algorithm really benign right now?
Is any algorithm benign, if a tech CEO can turn a dial and change the way we think and behave?
I don’t think we’ve fully wrapped our minds around the nature of these platforms.
Policymakers will always be behind the digital curve, but aside from outright bans, there are some basic regulation standards that are being worked out.
Personal data protection laws are gaining traction in the United States. It seems practical that we should at least retain ownership and control over our personal data. Joining the digital public square shouldn’t mean a forfeiture of all private information.
Restricting how social media companies interface with young people might also be a legitimate function for the government. The Dispatch reports that Utah is leading the charge on this front:
Late last month, Utah became the first state to pass laws requiring age verification, parental consent, and time limits for children using social media—an attempt to salvage young people’s cratering mental health.
You might argue that regulating youth access to social media is a restriction of their free speech rights. But if the social media companies are effectively warping the minds of the youth, how does that relate to free speech rights?
Perhaps we’ve now strayed into the topic of “free will in the digital age” which is a different can of worms.
We can’t force tech companies to ensure consistency and fairness about posting to platforms, but we can choose to support, by way of our time and attention, platforms that care about freedom of expression.
For me, that means writing and reading on Substack original, and maybe dabbling on Substack Notes.
I love this particular line, “Is any algorithm benign, if a tech CEO can turn a dial and change the way we think and behave?” Most people on social media might hear the term algorithm, but I think most have no idea how pernicious they really are. Great piece!