The global rise of social media has largely facilitated the dissemination of misinformation. While social media platforms have given users greater access to information, it has also given every user a virtual soapbox, to spout their conspiracy theories.
In the last US presidential election, “fake news” dominated the headlines and resulted in a permanent ban of former President, Donald Trump, from Twitter. And with the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend of “fake news” has only gotten worse, with conspiracies surrounding the virus and vaccines. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter have now begun removing posts that spread fake news.
While users have the right to freedom of speech, social media platforms also have the responsibility to moderate content that could be harmful. We asked some of our readers if platforms should prohibit users from spreading misinformation. Here are the responses:
Felicia Ohillio: Social media should crackdown on the spread of misinformation by banning misleading and inaccurate content about vaccines. We’ve steadily seen false claims about the coronavirus vaccines spill over into misinformation about vaccines in general, and we’re now at a point where it’s more important than ever to expand the work we started with COVID-19 to other vaccines.
Rashad Russell – I believe the strike system will help to educate the public on our policies and further reduce the spread of potentially harmful and misleading information on social media platforms. Social media is playing a role in the reduction of vaccines being administered to the public. At the heart of the problem are the companies’ content-recommendation algorithms, which are still generally designed to boost content that engages the most people, regardless of what it is even conspiracy theories.
Josh Baker – Social media is a platform that users should be able to use in order to express their thoughts and opinions freely. However, I don’t feel as though people should spread misinformation about COVID-19 or vaccines on there because it does jeopardize public health and safety. I do also feel like it’s the public’s job to properly inform themselves on what’s going on and not just take hearsay for assurance.
Kimberly Kuhlens – I am not ok with censorship like this, or tech giants deciding what constitutes ‘misinformation’. I think it’s important to remember that progress and developments in all areas of life come precisely from questioning the status quo, not from settling for it. The science is never settled – that’s not the nature of science! – and precedents like this pave a dangerous road. Most people might agree with the censorship in this instance, but what happens when there are similar measures put in place regarding a topic you don’t agree with? Like I said, developments in all areas of life come from pushing the boundaries and questioning the status quo. What if Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech had been censored as ‘misinformation’ because it was uncomfortable for some people to accept the idea of racial equity? That’s a horrifying idea! I will personally never vote in favor of censorship.
McKenzie Harden – Banning or censoring unpopular speech will only bolster conspiracy theories, as they move to alternate venues and continue discussions without the benefit of mainstream response. For those who respect the people, the right approach is to provide verifiable and cogent support for important positions.
Jevaughn McLeod – No I don’t think that’s right. People should be free to say whatever they want online, for the most part. If it’s something crazy, like criminal activity or something, then yes, the person should be held responsible for whatever they post and stuff like that should be banned. But if it’s just your own beliefs about COVID-19 or whatever, then no.
