--- title: Freedom of speech in the internet age author: Mohit Agarwal date: September 2021 bibliography: ["reference.bib","socialmedia.bib"] link-citations: true csl: http://www.zotero.org/styles/apa papersize: a4 nocite: '@*' --- The nature of free speech in our current society is questionable, yet the internet paves its own path in this realm. To the internet, the traditional considerations of freedom of speech arguably do not exist. Firstly, the question of place and time is less significant in relation to the internet in comparison with traditional thought on freedom of speech. Whilst speech in person creates noise and, can such as through the gathering of a crowd, causes genuine disruption to people who may inhabit the area. Furthermore, such a gathering or loud speech in the night may disrupt people who are trying to sleep and thereby be considered a nuisance. On the internet, however, there are no such considerations. Although actions online can spur in person events, any published material on the internet cannot immediately cause disruption through its time or place. As a non-physical event, its existence cannot block a road, create noise, or wake people in the night, unless individuals chose to do so in person. Furthermore, whilst a person talking in the street can indubitably be heard by any bystander, on the internet any material being read, watched, or listened to is through the choice of the reader, viewer, or listener. The speech that everyone must hear on the street, is heard only by those who wish to when it is published on some website. Thus, traditional limitations to absolute free speech that may seem reasonable or indeed necessary, such as the prevention of somebody shouting obscenities in public to the cause of major offence or at public events where disruption to others and other behavioural factors are considered significant [@sep-freedom-speech] seemingly no longer apply on the internet. Truly the internet deals without the physical constraints that may limit freedom of speech, allowing us to potentially understand the nature of freedom of speech in a greater sense, to one that is more open and wider through the existance of the internet. In modern society usage of the internet is clearly widespread and is noticeably an incredibly significant in our world today and will likely continue to be so [@stats;@stats-population;@stats-access]. The nature of the internet raises many questions in relation to our understanding of freedom of speech and allows the spread of information in a way that was once impossible. The significance and prevalence of the internet both now and in the foreseeable future, particularly given its popularity with young people means that we must consider the internet's relation to freedom of speech and how we should, or rather shouldn't attempt to act on it. A significant feature of internet communication methods is its resistance to regulation to limit freedom of speech. Some popular internet platforms have been known to restrict their users' communications, at times to the cause of some alarm [@twitter-suspends;@merkel]. These platforms, however, must be considered for what they are: popular, for-profit, private sites. However much we are invited to consider them as communications provides that exist for the common good of humanity, they are not. In this light, just as an individual may say what he pleases, or a newspaper may publish the content of its choosing, a website may host or not host content of its choosing as a private enterprise. For those who are not fond of such measures, there are other platforms which do not moderate users' content to such an extent such as the site 4chan, but they therby naturally have content that others may find distasteful [@4chan;@moot]. On this level it is clear, that private regulation is fine, and indeed quite useful (cite), particularly on popular platforms that are used by large numbers of people, or by particularly young children, such as YouTube. Governments will struggle to regulate this as much of it is beyond the bounds of their nation and is of such high volume that an attempt at regulation would be meaningless. There is cause for concern, however, with regulation on a 'lower level', such as the private companies that provide the infrastructure to form what we refer to as the internet. Sites have been taken down like this [@8chan] and it is an area that can be dangerous if regulation is introduced --reword [@ieee-freedom]. Regulation and surveillance at this level poses a threat to the freedoms the internet provides and the freedoms of citizens, as it would give governments or private companies to remove sites as they please. Furthermore, payment transaction services, such as PayPal or Visa can be considered in this way, and similarly, any attempts for regulation could be very serious for the freedoms of individuals. In protest to the potential for this there has been an increased interest in decentralisation. Cryptocurrencies can replace traditional payment systems, networks such as Tor can circumvent potential removal of sites from the internet, and decentralised communications protocols featuring encryption allow free and private communication. In fact, these technologies are already in popular use, both by those who have an interest in their privacy and freedoms, but also by criminal groups. Although there is a lot of effort to prevent this crime [@crime], the advance of technology makes it more difficult, thus presenting the problem that attempts to regulate freedom of speech in the internet age are useless, due to the freedoms the internet age provides. New technologies make it increasingly difficult to prevent communication and transfer of capital between parties governments might wish to. Thereby, it may be of greater interest to encourage healthy use of the internet, rather than attempt to force it, when doing so is arguably impossible. In the internet age, young people are very prominent users of technology [cite]. Yet, when learning that parents that are involved in the technology industry, such as Steve Jobs limit their own children in their usage of technology [cite], it can come as a surprise to us. We should consider how we allow our children to use technology and make use of the freedoms it already provides and will seemingly continue to provide [@parenting], perhaps to an even greater extent. For governments attempting to promote ethical behaviour and enforce laws, attempted regulation of the freedoms that the internet provides may be fruitless or may have to be so draconian, as is visible in China [@bbc-moderation], that these very regulations are perhaps themselves deeply unethical. Thus, governments should consider instead promoting education on the use of technology. # References and bibliography