1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
|
---
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? -->
In modern society usage of the internet is clearly widespread and is
noticeably an incredibly significant in our world today and will
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. Although some
popular sites have been known to restrict their users' communications
at some 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. Howevermuch we are invited to
consider them as communications that exist for the common good of
humanity, they are not. In this light, just as a newspaper may publish
the content of its choosing, a website may host and 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, 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, that
these very regulations are perhaps themselves deeply unethical. Thus,
governments should consider instead promoting education on the use of
technology.
# References and bibliography
|
