talking point

moderating content would make us too powerful

A way to avoid responsibility for hate speech and inappropriate content.

A claim made by digital media companies to explain their inability (or unwillingness) to moderate content at a level sufficient to block hate speech and other harmful content.

The argument is specious in part because social media companies are already immensely powerful; any company that can set a policy that impacts hundreds of millions of people has an obligation to use its power responsibly.

The statement conveys an important tension: while social media companies have said they will do more to moderate content, particularly in the wake of the Christchurch tragedy and other incidents, they have been reluctant to draw clear lines that could be perceived as censorship. At the same time, the companies have resisted government regulation, which would of course reduce their power.

We can’t just keep changing randomly based on our viewpoints. That just adds to the fear of companies like ours making these judgments…. More and more people have fear of companies like ours and the perceived power that companies like ours have over how they live and even think every single day. -- Twitter founder Jack Dorsey, on CNN

#the undeciders
2

moderating content would make us too powerful

A way to avoid responsibility for hate speech and inappropriate content.

Screen Shot 2019-10-09 at 2.45.14 PM

Power comes from the option to moderate content at a massive scale. The specific moderations policies could be good, bad, biased, fair, aggressive or lenient; that is irrelevant to how much power a company has.

There are ways to address the power that tech platforms have (e.g. regulation, antitrust, etc.), but that debate is orthogonal to whether they should be more aggressively addressing the abuse, harassment, misinformation, bigotry etc. on their platforms.

#power