Letters | Free speech must rule the internet: but at what cost?

Where the boundaries of freedom of expression and censorship lie is ultimately a question of values. The line has to be drawn collectively by all stakeholders in society

Reading Time:2 minutes

With disinformation on the rise, humanity has woken up to the power of social media as a real and tangible issue for society and institutions. This has rightly sparked a debate over whether and how content on social media platforms should be regulated. Photo: Shutterstock

Published: 8:00am, 21 Feb 2021Updated: 8:00am, 21 Feb 2021

The internet and social media companies such as WhatsApp, Facebook and YouTube have transformed the way we learn, study, work, play and interact, such that it is not an overstatement to say a large segment of our lives has shifted online. However, as with most societal transformations, the benefits are inevitably followed by challenges which tend to be overlooked at first.

With disinformation on the rise, persistent vaccine scepticism and the recent violent storming of the US Congress on Capitol Hill, humanity has awakened to the power of social media as more than merely an academic abstract but a real and tangible issue for our society and institutions. This has rightly sparked a debate over whether and how content on social media platforms should be regulated.

Initially, most tend to agree that, analogous to public broadcasting on mainstream media, at least some online content needs to be censored to protect legitimate interests and the vulnerable. However, with reference to “fake news”, particularly concerning politics, the debate becomes more controversial.

On one hand, some vouch for the right to freedom of expression. They argue that nobody – not Facebook nor the government – has a monopoly on the truth, and that letting minority views dismissed by the establishment circulate in the public debate is crucial for us to challenge the status quo and facilitate the advancement of mankind.

They argue that it is only continuous debate between alternative theories that will eventually allow us to refute false claims and discover the truth.

01:55

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman claims US army brought coronavirus to Wuhan

Although this argument does have its merits, it paints an overly optimistic picture of public debate nowadays. While “alternative facts” might uncover blind spots in our current beliefs, this must be balanced against its social costs.