Third Prize Winner: “Conglomerate Global Connections and the Glass Divide” by Anika Mei Cunanan, University of Santo Tomas
What is the difference between a rally and a hashtag campaign? Fundamentally, they are nothing more than a collective stance on a belief while utilizing different platforms for expression. Yet, they serve the same purpose under our freedom of speech.
From the beginning, democracy was founded on freedom. The collaboration of free ideas and expression in politics created the ideology of democracy, hence its self-ruling nature in society.
In questioning freedom in modern democracies, its limitations come into light when it contradicts other human rights. To some, this does not count as “true freedom” since regulations in place constrain free thought. Yet others would continue the chase for the feeling of freedom — the desire for open expression free from any judgment. Tim Berners-Lee once shared his thoughts on the future of managing an open-source project like the Internet: How must we help it survive in the face of excessive bureaucracy and political or commercial pressures? Striking a balance in dealing with harmful online content without abolishing too much of society’s freedom of expression lies within the subjectivity of the content itself, what it represents in different societies globally, and how it is handled by the hosting platforms.
With how vastly different societies around the globe function in comparison to one another, not everyone can be protected on platforms that focus on connecting. While common interests are bound to stay afloat in online spaces, different opinions and viewpoints will persist and can always spark controversy in one way or another.
What was once thought to be the downfall of the Internet’s free nature has now become part of modern Internet culture. Take the case of Reddit’s supposed downfall from its former vision of being a completely free wall for anonymous opinion exchange to how it exists today, consistently moderated by millions of active users, which ultimately silences voices that are seen as way too controversial to host. While the app’s history holds clear reasoning to its dramatic shift, online communities like Reddit which are originally built based on specific interests with limited moderation are almost nonexistent due to the role of outside governance trying to play everyone’s advocate. With how subjective every topic could be, all-encompassing governing bodies would ultimately fail to safeguard every human right. With how vastly different societies around the globe function in comparison to one another, not everyone can be protected on platforms that focus on connecting. While common interests are bound to afloat in online spaces, different opinions and viewpoints will persist and can always spark controversy in one way or another.
More regulatory mechanisms continue to be put in place, but due to cost reduction attempts, mechanisms such as content moderation and filtering are automated. One prominent example is YouTube, a video-sharing site known for numerous controversies regarding its moderation of children’s content. As the platform grows, it continues to cater to a younger audience, which in turn slowly silences creators who make content for more adult viewers. While cost reduction is a business trend done to increase profits, companies and governing bodies should have the rights of all its users protected in their best interests.
While automation and policy generalization benefit the market and Internet connectivity, an individual’s human rights should always come first and not be violated by merely having an online presence.
Keeping the focus on a smaller community rather than adopting universal decisions would be preferable in determining what counts as “harmful online content,” as smaller societies that interact with one another more frequently tend to share the same ideals. They tend to agree better on what counts as harmful and what counts as controversial yet necessary. Take for instance when Facebook permitted an unnamed Brazilian politician’s post uncovering female nipples, which violated the platform standards on depiction of nudity. However, modern feminists have honed the discourse surrounding this with the normalization of female anatomy, equating it to that of men. Nonetheless, the newsworthy post was bound to gain traction due to complaints that it promoted nude content on a platform that is accessible to minors over the age of thirteen.
While automation and policy generalization benefit the market and Internet connectivity, an individual’s human rights should always come first and not be violated by merely having an online presence. Free speech should be protected by the regulations that govern both internet platforms and real-world society. In a democratic state, it should not matter how people express themselves, as it is theorized that discourse and debate usually lead to the best courses of action. Yet, these practices should promote critical thinking among the citizens of a community, as this will in turn create a domino effect of effective discourse. The belief is that prioritizing an individual’s freedom of expression while promoting a more open mindset and rejecting unnecessary violent threats can ultimately balance out expression and other human rights.
