You have likely heard the term “Big Tech” thrown around from time to time. It refers to the dominant information technology companies like Amazon, Google, and Facebook, among others –– basically, the platforms that the majority of Americans use on a daily, or even hourly, basis. And while these platforms are a great tool, our reliance on them is becoming increasingly concerning. Our free speech has become dangerously tied to our ability to access them. These companies have begun selectively applying their terms of service and community standards against those with particular viewpoints, creating a litany of hypocrisy that must come to an end.
The most cited example of Big Tech censorship involves former President Donald Trump. In response to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Twitter and Snapchat permanently banned POTUS #45, while Facebook and Instagram put him on an indefinite time-out. These companies believe Trump incited the attack with his media activity and feared his posts would produce further violence. Regardless of whether these claims hold truth or not, one must wonder two things: 1. If Big Tech can censor the President of the Free World, is there a limit to its power? and 2. What does this say about the state of free speech in the United States? The President was completely de-platformed from communicating through Big Tech — he could not post even the most innocent material. The arbitrary application of community standards is extremely concerning, especially when considering how heads of state sponsors of terror are still on social media. These platforms are used to recruit new members and plan violent attacks, but Big Tech is not always as quick to voice concerns over potential violence as they were with a former president. A more consistent application of community standards is clearly necessary.
Beyond the example of #45, other public figures with views adverse to the left’s have also been censored. In May, conservative comedian Steven Crowder received his second strike from YouTube on claims of harassment and cyberbullying. The episode at issue covered the shooting death of Ma’khia Bryant by a police officer. Crowder discussed how Bryant attacked someone with a knife before the officer shot her, arguing with his co-host that the shooting was justified. In a fashion fitting for a comedian, Crowder joked about the incident, eliciting the removal of the video from YouTube. If he received one more strike within 90 days he would have been cut off from the platform and his millions of subscribers. This October, Crowder was subject to a week-long channel freeze for an episode where he suggests “trans people pose a rape threat to women” while discussing California’s decision to host biological males in women’s prisons. YouTube said Crowder violated their hate speech policy. Bill Maher’s video expressing his pleasure with David Koch’s death, however, is completely fine. The issue is that even if the claims do violate YouTube standards, these platforms seem to apply their guidelines very selectively.
The oppressive leftist zeitgeist of today’s discourse even pervades the academic arena, which is perhaps the most dangerous place to censor civil discourse. Even Amazon censors certain books. In February 2021, for example, Ryan Anderson’s book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement became the first to be banned under Amazon’s new hate speech policy. The book had been a best-seller when it was first released. Further, Amazon recently prohibited ads for the book BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution because it “contains book/s or content that is not allowed” under its “Creative Acceptance Policies.” The book dives into the difference between saying “black lives matter” and the organization of the same name. These two examples deal with opinions contrary to the left’s agenda, which is reflective of a larger problem within today’s civil discourse. Rather than engaging in difficult discussions, many try to censor the right over claims of hate speech or offensive content. This specifically alters what is considered to be an acceptable opinion, and Big Tech just adds to this growing problem.
Regardless of political leanings, the selective use of Big Tech censorship poses a threat to the country’s political discourse. If we cannot discuss difficult issues freely and openly, then we risk becoming a thoughtless nation. The idea of Orwell’s “memory hole” in his 1984 novel comes to mind: anything the government wanted wiped from the public record was put through a chute into an incinerator to revise history and promote Party dogma. At this point, Big Tech essentially has the power of the memory hole. It can promote the policy positions it favors and censor others under the guise of community standards violations. While some may claim that Big Tech censorship can be solved by switching to a different platform, it is not that simple. Amazon dominates the book-selling market, selling 65% of all new online book units. So, getting blacklisted by Amazon poses a dramatic obstacle to your book sales. Further, if you’re de-platformed from somewhere like YouTube, it becomes incredibly difficult to maintain your following. The loss of your account also marks the loss of your subscribers. Losing access to these platforms means you will have to jump through hoops to maintain what you built.
If Big Tech is going to go censorship-crazy, they should create more transparent and definitive standards of behavior, applied evenly across the board. The future of civil discourse could very well depend upon it. Our republic was built through deliberation by great thinkers who brought different ideas to the table, with the best ultimately rising to the top. In the spirit of the American experiment, we need to return to true deliberation. A willingness to engage with controversial ideas is the only way to affirm or dispute them. We cannot label everything we disagree with as “hate speech” or “offensive,” even if it makes us uncomfortable. Instead, embrace debate. Prove others wrong. Technology and the media should be a revolutionary way for us to do this. Instead, it has become an enemy of free, unconventional thought. Big Tech’s memory hole must come to an end.