We have a tendency to have a reactionary definition of free speech, mostly associated with a historical context that is simply inapplicable to our modern context.

When you criticize the relationship between social media and censorship, you often get brigaded by one of two groups, sometimes both. The first group are those who often accuse social media groups of censorship, often more associated with rightwing ideologies. Generally it’s because they have some abhorrent view they think they should be able to spread widely but can’t because of basic moderation. The alternative group are often those making the argument that “companies are not governments and have no requirement to respect free speech”, which is fine, but what is the meaning of free speech if we can’t use it? We put down language in the first amendment regarding government suppression of speech because it was governments which had the power to control and limit speech. If a corporation has the power to limit what perspectives or speech is allowed, how different is it really than a government? If a corporation has this degree, should it not also have limits placed on it’s ability to regulate speech?

The fact is we’re often talking past each other regarding speech and it’s consequences. We need a revised understanding of what it means to have the rights of free speech and free association, when so much of our daily lives are controlled by corporations and billionaires with levels of influence rivaling and even dwarfing some governments. What does it mean to have free speech? What even is free speech in a modern digital context? What forms of speech do we allow or disallow?