Imagine opening your social media account in the morning, having thousands of followers, and sharing your opinions or engaging in lively discussions with the community you’ve built over the years. After a few hours, all your posts and comments are deleted, and your account is deactivated.
From personal experience, you know that Facebook, often without much notice, allows hateful posts and comments to circulate openly, where people threaten violence or denigrate others in a highly offensive manner. Suddenly, as if not applying the same standards, they simultaneously ban inappropriate humor from someone whose intention was not hateful or inciting violence. Or your Facebook account disappears without an apparent reason, as it recently happened to our nonprofit organization, Women For Women. Trying to get an explanation from a global company where one account with a few thousand followers is just a grain of sand in the desert is impossible, and the result is frustrating.
Is this approach by technological companies fair? Can private companies with vast reach, significant social responsibility, and almost a monopoly on social communication afford it? Or is it bullying and often extreme decisions that endanger democratic principles in society? And how can we effectively limit the spread of hatred and misinformation in the public sphere without undue interference with freedom of speech?
From the beginning, it’s clear that the relationship between Facebook or another platform and its users is mutually voluntary. A user can decide to leave at any time, just as a social platform can stop providing its services at any time. However, the conditions of “deplatforming” should be clearly defined when the user enters, so they can assess for themselves when they violate those unclear “community rules” and when they do not.
Blocking, reporting, and attempts at deplatforming are increasingly applied methods by which, paradoxically, liberal democrats most often expel and silence other opinions and criticism. They seem to overlook that in doing so, they themselves are jeopardizing the essence of liberal democracy. Instead of allowing the clash of different opinions, they advocate a single, correct opinion, thus excluding pluralism, diversity of views, and respect for other stances. In the Western world, a prevailing trend is one that, in the name of political correctness and an anxious desire not to offend anyone, suppresses all expressions of self-critique. However, it’s not clear which dogmas are currently in force. Is the gender 40, 70, or already 94 this morning? Can we debate with Greta Thunberg, or is she untouchable? Is it still acceptable to make fun of over-the-top activism, or is it the oppression of a minority? In a world where advocates of a single progressive view on the world have taken over important positions in government, universities, businesses, sports, and many other fields, it is increasingly difficult to tell who the majority and the minority are.
Right-leaning personalities also experience deplatforming due to criticism of other aspects of the woke agenda, such as critical race theory, genderism, or hysteria surrounding COVID measures. For some of them, activists have not stopped at limiting freedom of expression but have also attacked them financially. Similar to how they pressure banks not to finance projects involving fossil energy sources, they are pushing to have accounts of individuals with inconvenient views canceled. In a time when social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter practically have a monopoly on social interaction, and you can’t get by without a bank account, this is a disturbing reminder of Orwell’s “1984” and the threats of complete societal dominance over dissident individuals.
We must not let anyone, whether activists, opponents, or technologies, take away our freedom to express ourselves according to our conscience. Anyone who encounters discrimination in the ability to express their opinion or limitations on freedom of speech should speak out. We have courts, broadcasting councils, ombudsmen, representative democracy. Even though parliamentary elections are held once every four years, we can contact our elected representatives and create a counterbalance to the pressure that tries to mold us into a single line of thinking.
Each of us can contribute to this with our own generosity toward the people around us. We learn the ability to accept others’ opinions during family communication, discussions with friends and acquaintances. It may be uncomfortable at times that our loved ones have different viewpoints or beliefs, but if we show tolerance for their differences, they might be willing to listen to us next time and not want to impose their views on us. 🙂
Ivana Tykač,
