Ravelry, an online knitting community that has more than
8 million members, last month announced that it would ban forum posts,
projects, patterns and even profiles from users who supported President
Trump or his administration.
“We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow
support for open white supremacy,” the administrators of Ravelry
posted on the site on June 23.
“Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white
supremacy,” the post added.
The administrators have maintained that they aren’t endorsing
Democrats or banning Republicans. Users who do support the
administration have been told they can still participate — they just can’t voice their support on Ravelry.
Ravelry’s move was met with both an outpouring
of support from those who opposed the administration’s policies and condemnation from those who support the president.
Ravelry is not the first online community to issue such an ultimatum
to users. The roleplaying game portal RPGnet last fall issued a
decree that support for President Trump would be banned on its forums.
“Support for elected hate groups aren’t welcome here,” the
administrators posted. “We can’t save the world, but we can protect
and care for the small patch that is this board.”
Is It Censorship?
The banning of conservative groups hasn’t been limited to Ravelry or
RPGnet. Facebook last fall announced that it had
purged more than 800 U.S. accounts that it identified as flooding users with politically oriented spam.
However, some conservatives — including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas — have argued that Facebook has unfairly targeted those expressing conservative opinions. Cruz this spring raised his concerns with representatives from Facebook and Twitter during the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution’s hearing, “Stifling Free Speech:
Technological Censorship and the Public Discourse.”
The threat of political censorship could be problematic due to the
lack of transparency Cruz noted during the April hearing.
“If Big Tech wants to be partisan political speakers it has that
right,” he said, “but it has no entitlement to a special immunity
from liability under Section 230 that The New York Times doesn’t enjoy, that The Washington Post doesn’t enjoy — that nobody else enjoys other than Big Tech.”
Understanding Section 230
Much of the debate revolves around Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act of 1996, the common name for Title V of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. As part of a landmark piece of
Internet legislation in the United States, it provides immunity from
liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service”
that publishes information provided by third-party users.
The law basically says that those who host or republish speech are not
legally responsible for what others say and do. That includes not only
Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast or Verizon, but also
any services that publish third-party content, which would include
the likes of Facebook and Ravelry.
One of Section 230’s authors, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has
countered that the law was intended to make sure that companies could moderate their respective websites without fear of lawsuits.
Striking a Balance
The divide online is of course just a mirror of the deep political
divide in the U.S., and it is unlikely that legal wording
will do much to heal it. Battle lines have been drawn, and both sides
continue to dig in. The question is whether banning those with
differing opinions actually helps or hurts matters.
There is an argument that this is simply defusing controversy and
silencing the most extreme voices.
“It was once shared with me that intolerance of intolerance is
intolerance,” said Nathaniel Ivers, associate professor and
chairman of the department of counseling at
Wake Forest University.
“We often think of intolerance as an inherently negative thing;
however, there are instances in which communities, groups and
organizations are justified in establishing zero tolerance clauses for
certain behaviors and ideologies,” he told TechNewsWorld.
“The challenge, however, is that these clauses are innately rigid and
may at times exclude ideas, attitudes and behaviors that are
benign,” Ivers added.
Then there is the concern of whether this is an issue of censorship.
However, those who understand media law know that in the legal sense, censorship applies to the government and media. Private companies actually are within their rights to determine what is appropriate for their audiences.
In most cases users also agree to terms of use, and
violating those terms — which can include the posting of what is considered inappropriate content — can result in removal of content or
termination of membership to a group or site.
“Does Ravelry, have the right to censor?” pondered social media
consultant Lon Safko.
“Sure they do. It’s their site, and they can do anything they want
short of child pornography,” he told TechNewsWorld.
Extreme Decisions
Facebook’s and Ravelry’s decisions to ban some content have been based
on what each views as “extremist” in nature. This may reflect the deep divide in the nation, but is the action inappropriate?
“Generally speaking, social media companies — like other companies —
have significant leeway in running their business in the manner of
their choosing, as long as they do not violate applicable laws,” said
Robert Foehl, executive in residence for the business law and ethics
department at the
Ohio University Online Master of Business
Administration program.
“When making all kinds of business decisions, companies are
increasingly considering the impacts, both positive and negative, on
the various stakeholders of the company —
owners/investors/shareholders, for sure, but also other important
stakeholders, such as customers, employees, and communities/society,”
he told TechNewsWorld.
This is why Facebook last year began following the lead of eBay and
other online sites that have banned the sale of items of a
questionable nature. Among them are items of the Third Reich. While some legitimate collectors who see the historical value in such items have
voiced concern, Facebook’s decision was based in part on how they could be linked to extremist groups.
“Social media companies have long maintained content policies that
govern what is deemed acceptable content for their product and users
can freely choose whether they want to agree with those policies and
use the product, or disagree and not become a customer of the
company,” Foehl suggested.
“This trend signals a tipping point in the Internet’s 30-year history,
and in particular the data ecosystem it has brought forth with its
growing encroachment into people’s private lives,” added Chris Olson,
CEO of
The Media Trust.
“There is a fine line between hate speech and the right to free
speech,” Olson told TechNewsWorld. “As with all rights, there comes responsibility — like the
responsibility not to ruin people’s lives nor start a riot.”
Political Debate
A greater concern than whether personal opinions — even those that some
may find distasteful — are being silenced is what this means for the
political debate. Is one side, notably the conservative voice, being
cut out of the debate?
“Over the last few years, concerns about freedom of speech,
censorship, and social media’s role in political communication have
come to the forefront,” noted Ohio University’s Foehl.
“Given the pervasiveness and importance of social media platforms as a
means of communication and connection in today’s societies, these
concerns are timely and legitimate,” he added.
It is important not to inadvertently conflate issues, Foehl noted.
“It is important to remember that the constitutional right to freedom
of speech in the United States protects against inappropriate
restrictions on speech by state actors — in essence, the government
and related institutions,” he explained. “So, citizens are free to
express ideas through speech in the town square without governmental
interference. In the United States, social media companies are not
state actors; thus the freedom of speech protections afforded by the
Constitution do not apply to speech contained in their platforms.”
The Ethics Question
One question then is whether Facebook or other social media
companies — as well as firms like Ravelry and RPG.net — actually have
acted unethically. That could depend in large part on their intentions
in disallowing certain content.
“If the intent is to remove content that could reasonably be seen to
cause harm to, or if the content does not respect the dignity or
autonomy of, individuals or a group of people, then it is very likely
that the company acted ethically when removing the content,” said
Foehl.
“On the other hand, if content was removed in order to attempt to
impose the ideology of the company’s executives, political or
otherwise, on others, then the content removal would be ethically
suspect,” he added.
“Of course, this is the rub — those whose content has been removed
many times feel it is because of ideological conflicts with the
content decision makers; and President Trump has been especially vocal
about his view that political bias is the basis for many content
decisions,” Foehl noted.
However, social media companies may not have overstepped any
existing authority, given their role in society today.
“Companies are not state actors, and they have the authority to develop
their products as they see fit, as long as they comply with applicable
laws,” emphasized Foehl.
“The development, implementation, and
enforcement of clearly communicated content guidelines are a [requirement]
of customer trust. Customers have the autonomy to decide whether they
want to do business with the company,” he added.
Equal Time and Fairness
Some conservatives could argue that they are being shut out of the
dialogue online, but there are precedents to consider. The first is the
equal time rule, which is specific to elections. It requires that U.S. radio and
television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity
to any opposing political candidates who request it.
However, that applies to elections and to the broadcast
medium, so those who suggest that Ravelry’s ban is a violation
misunderstand the law.
The other law is the FCC’s fairness doctrine, a policy introduced in
1949 that requires the holders of broadcast licenses to present both
sides of controversial issues. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 —
and that move may have been instrumental in leading to the proliferation of conservative
talk radio.
As the Internet is now maturing, this issue may need to be reconsidered.
“The government, industry and Internet public will have to agree to a
set of standards — all of which are still being hammered out and
tried,” said The Media Trust’s Olson.
“This industry attempt is merely the result of a larger set of
problems, like pointing fingers at outdated laws and regulations,
social media platforms, or people’s uncontrolled impulses,” he added.
“The solution lies in everyone working together in crafting better
governance policies that can be applied as a minimum around the
world,” said Olson. “With technology outpacing laws and norms, the
path forward is a rocky one until the base standards are hammered
out.”
Consequences of the Discourse
In the end this banning of conservatives — whether for
legitimate concerns or petty grievances — could fracture communities and ultimately be bad for business.
“Censorship is bad for Ravelry’s business,” said Safko.
“If they don’t allow pro-Trump, then as a business site, they should not allow anti-Trump or any political postings.”
Failure to do so could result in legislation and strict rules —
something that isn’t good for a free and open discussion of issues and
civil debate.
“A potential issue with rigid laws, policies, or regulations, is that
they can, over time, create a very homogeneous community,” said Wake
Forest University’s Ivers.
“In such communities, people may, for a time, feel more comfortable;
however, these groups also may become fertile ground for stereotypes
and xenophobia,” he warned.
“It is important to clarify that the social media sites like Ravelry
and RPGnet that have banned content related specifically to President
Trump have made the decision that he is inextricably linked to hate
speech — speech that attacks a person or group based on protected
characteristics such as race, religion, disability and sexual
orientation,” explained Foehl.
“They have not banned content based on where such content falls on the
political spectrum,” he added.
As a result, social media companies find themselves in a very difficult
situation when it comes to removing content.
“This situation is exacerbated by social media’s prevalence and
importance in the exchange of ideas in the modern world,” said
Foehl.
“The decision to remove content should not be taken lightly and must
pass ethical scrutiny,” he added. “Employing a sound and formal
governance structure that allows content removal decisions to be made
quickly — but not hastily — and independently [from company
executives] is advisable. The criteria for content removal should be
developed with a mind toward ensuring doing no harm and treating
others with respect and dignity, while allowing for the exercise of
personal autonomy.”
Peter Suciu has been an ECT News Network reporter since 2012. His areas of focus include cybersecurity, mobile phones, displays, streaming media, pay TV and autonomous vehicles. He has written and edited for numerous publications and websites, including Newsweek, Wired and FoxNews.com.
Email Peter.