path: root/paper.md

---
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: '@*'
---
<!-- *y -->
<!-- Should we rethink the nature and limits of freedom of speech in
the internet age? -->

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