The Ever Given Blocking the Suez Canal. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
In late March 2021, much of the 24-hour news cycle was dedicated to an economic catastrophe in the Middle East. On March 23rd, the Ever Given, a 1300 foot-long shipping container operating in high winds, ran aground in the Suez Canal. The ship blocked all traffic on the world’s largest canal channel. Experts estimate that nearly 400 million dollars in shipping was held up every additional hour that the waterway remained blocked, making this an extremely costly mishap for many nations and corporations worldwide.
A much less-covered story, however, was that of Egyptian Captain Marwa Elselehdar. Elselehdar, the first female captain in Egyptian history, was identified on social media as the leader of the crew that sailed the Ever Given through the Suez. A photo taken from Arab News, a Saudi newspaper, was circulated around the web. Commenters on various platforms seized on this news and used the opportunity to mock Elselehdar. Posts questioning whether women should be allowed to captain ships and lead crews flooded social media, all because of Elselehdar’s apparent failure in captaining the Ever Given.
The only problem? At the time of the ship’s grounding, Elselehdar was in the city of Alexandria, 200 miles away from the Ever Given, a ship that she has never stepped foot on. The circulated Arab News photo was a doctored form of another Arab News article praising Elselehdar as the first female captain in Egyptian history. Anonymous trolls had created the doctored image, apparently intending to harm the reputation of Elselehdar. The captain was harassed and insulted all over social media for several weeks because of a false rumor. What is Elselehdar‘s recourse in this situation? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Social media companies have no duty to reveal to her who created this slanderous content, give her the real identities of those who harassed her, or take responsibility for this content, either in Egypt where she is or the United States where many of those who libeled her appear to be located.
The principal reason for her inability to legally address these hateful messages in the US is the existence of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields internet companies that act in “good faith” to regulate their platform from the legal consequences of the material posted on their platform. This statute provides “Big Tech” social media companies like Facebook and Twitter wide leeway to regulate their platforms as they see fit without having to take responsibility for the content they permit on their websites. This practice, intended to maintain the internet as a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse…cultural development…[and] intellectual activity,” has been continuously abused by tech companies to disregard their basic moral duty to prevent obviously false and harmful material from being published on their sites.
From doxxing and harassment to widespread disinformation campaigns, social media companies have allowed all manner of harmful materials to be disseminated on their platforms either willfully or ignorantly. These materials have caused significant harm throughout the world, from inspiring violence and terroristic acts to increasing depression among teens. Frequently, no one is held responsible for them. While free speech must be protected on social media platforms, many materials go well beyond typical free speech protections, spreading libelous, obscene, and false information.
Social media companies claim that these extraordinary protections are necessary to preserve the free market of ideas available to users. Jack Dorsey of Twitter has been particularly critical of repealing Section 230, claiming that it would “collapse how we communicate on the internet.” Big Tech CEOs seem determined to convince us that by providing them with these unique permissions, they promote the democratic sphere of ideas, providing a space for individuals to present their ideas without worrying about censorship and suppression.
Only, that isn’t what these platforms provide. Several industry whistleblowers and numerous public figures have accused social media companies of censorship and viewpoint discrimination which is frequently met with apology and promises to improve. Rarely do social media companies provide information about how these incidents will be prevented in the future. The social media establishment frankly seems uninterested in affording conservatives the same platform to express their opinions as those on the other side of the political spectrum. Figures small and large that face discrimination have no remedy outside of simply begging the corporations to behave fairly.
“Big Tech” has abused both sides of Section 230. It refuses to maintain an equally accessible free forum of ideas yet still allows their users to harass and libel innocent individuals like Captain Elselehdar without worry. This is a spectacular injustice. We’ve allowed these corporations to regulate their platforms under a “good samaritan” understanding that they would do so fairly. They have not abided by this understanding. Instead, Big Tech has promote their agenda by selectively restricting certain users.
Such actions are anathema to any free exchange of ideas. If social media corporations wish to retain their right to moderate their platforms at will, they should have that right, but only when they assume full responsibility for the materials they permit on those platforms. It’s time for us to regard these social media corporations as what they are, publishers of the material they permit on their sites. As private corporations with private rights to free speech, they should take direct private responsibility for that speech and bear the consequences that come with it.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.