Censorship is free speech too. It's good. And you (will) agree!

Everyone is for many aspects of censorship. Everyone!

Imagine being at a restaurant. Someone comes in, starts yelling at the patrons about how the food is bad, the cost is high, the service is terrible. They then say the restaurant across the street is better and everyone should leave and go there.

Would anyone question the restaurant telling that person they need to be quiet or leave? Is it a violation of that person’s first amendment rights? Does it matter if they are on the payroll of the restaurant across the street or not?

What if the person starts yelling “my right to free speech is being violated!” as the police escort them out of the building?

Is this censorship? Yes. Is it good. Yes. Does anyone have an issue with that? No.

So why do we so often respond with acceptance when this behavior occurs on our social media properties?

In the early version of the internet, there was limited ability to moderate content, and that moderation privileges were often left with a select few, who quickly became overwhelmed. We became accustomed to a culture of limited moderation, perhaps only occurring when the Nazis showed up, but even then, the Nazis would stay and others would slowly migrate to another forum. Accepting the culture of libertarian discourse became fundamental to internet discussions.

But then after years of disorganized discussion platforms, platforms which often limited the majority from engaging on out of the incessant attacks that would inevitably follow, Facebook came along and created a platform that attached our true identities to our public online activity. It required an edu email address, which are strictly moderated by universities. This ensured, to some degree, that those you were communicated with where who they claimed to be, and their activities would not be obscured by anonymity. While not eliminating harassment, it created an environment where people of all types could connect online in a more open and responsible manner.

Was it censorship to create rules to participate in a network? Yes. Was it good? Yes.

As the network grew and expanded past people in your college, friends from high school, acquaintances, and other random people joined your network.

When you defriended that annoying person you kind of knew in high school, that was moderation. Did it limit their right to free speech on your profile? Yes. Was it good and appropriate? Yes.

When someone calls into a radio show, they speak to a call screener. This screener decides if the call will be put through to the live show.

Is that preemptive censorship? Yes. Is it good? Yes.

So when it comes to comment sections on Facebook, why do so many think it should be a free-for-all? Why do so many accept harassment, negativity, and misinformation, as acceptable? Why do so many ignore it, and justify it to themselves with some outdated and simplistic notion of free speech?

It’s true that it can be time consuming to moderate every comment using the tools provided by these platforms. AI does not grasp context, nuance, or an individual’s history, so while some platforms have basic “civility tools,” they create more of a watered down environment for discussions, at best. AI and keyword blocking, while useful in some limited circumstances, too often miss the whole point of discussions by focusing on the hunt for individual problematic content. Instead, by putting the focus on the individual commenter — who they are, their intent, and their past activity — we encompass more than the specific text/image/video/link they are sharing, allowing one to actually moderate in a manner that facilitates robust, productive discussions, taking into account what truly matters.

The reach and connections that commenters can achieve on your Page is immensely important. Do you want to give the trolls an opportunity to connect with each other? Do you want your supporters to be harassed incessantly, then silence themselves? Or is investing the resources to create a better environment worth it? By censoring content that doesn’t facilitate the purpose of your page, you are allowing your supporters to have a place where they can use their right to free speech. It’s your property, and the manner discussions occur are up to you.

It’s simply common sense to show empathy for your users by giving them a productive environment to comment.

Censorship is good.

Obviously, this isn’t to suggest all censorship is good. Or even moderating all negative or challenging comments. Often, these comments are things that need to be addressed. And simply because the comments aren’t showing up on your Page does not mean those ideas will not be shared on other properties.

Addressing these concerns in an organized manner can be far more helpful for your purposes than simply letting any commenter derail other conversations. Social media is often an equalizer, but by equalizing, it also can prevent growth. An issue that was addressed months ago could continuously brought up, preventing growth. How many times have Mike Masnick needed to respond with the same explainer about free speech or Section 230?

Moderation on your Page will be more of an art than a science. It will take time to get right for your purposes. Deciding it is worth your time is the first step to helping turn your properties into a place for productive connections and growth.

Common Sense Empathy gives you the tools to do it properly on your Facebook Page.

Reach out to signup <at> csempathy <dot> app if you’d like to give it a try.