Media madness: Facebook v. Parler controversy
Delaney Blackburn, Features and Entertainment Editor
Social network censorship and politics have stirred up controversies surrounding platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Parler, a popular alternative to Facebook, has recently been terminated from the internet after claims of its users inciting violence.
Facebook has been criticized by many conservatives for banning certain posts from its platform. Accusations of free speech violations have been circulating the platform causing some users to search for alternatives.
Others have said that companies like Facebook need to do more to remove content containing misinformation or conspiracy theories.
John Matze founded Parler in September 2018 to provide online users with a platform centered around free speech.
In the past several months, Parler has been one of the fastest-growing social media networks. However, the app was recently removed by Apple, Google and Amazon.
Apple and Google claimed that Parler did not regulate its users� posts enough. Meanwhile, Amazon claimed Parler violated too many of their policies.
According to company executives, Parler had 15 million users before its shutdown.
Andrew Stevens, assistant professor of communication at North Greenville University said in an interview, �We, as people in general, tend to seek out those sources of information that confirm the way we see the world. If people believe there is a left bias in the mainstream media, they will seek out alternative information sources.�
Stevens explained that the First Amendment applies specifically to governmental entities, not private corporations like Facebook.
He continued, �The First Amendment says, �Congress shall make no law � ,� however, I, as a broadcaster have the right to�in fact I have the responsibility to�censor my content. That is because I am a publisher and have responsibility for my content.�
Stevens explained that under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, billboard organizations are not liable to the content placed on their services; however, they can block illegal content.
He added that Facebook is protected under provision, but it has taken it upon itself to block or modify content that is not necessarily illegal.
Stevens said that since it is not illegal to post an untruth, something that is unproven or an opinion on social media, Facebook claiming the right to control content could open up some problems for the platform.
�If Facebook says it has a responsibility to control the content it carries, it is acting as a publisher, not a billboard,� said Stevens. �Facebook is setting itself up, in my opinion, for major lawsuits from other people who have been damaged by content posted on Facebook.�
Linwood Hagin, associate provost and professor of mass communication at North Greenville University said, �If Facebook owns the distribution process, they are going to control the content until the government tells them to stop.�
Hagin said that he believes Facebook is trying to censor people�s opinions. He described social media as a platform that�s been developed for people to express their opinions; however, Hagin said that people�s differing opinions combined with social media leads to political division and conflict.
Hagin added that it�s the individual�s responsibility to determine what content to consume. He advised those who don�t like to see division or conflict on social media to avoid this type of content.
Hagin advised those who feel as though their voices aren�t being heard on social media to find distribution sources that will allow content to be seen and heard. He also advised creating an original social media platform. He said to control what can be controlled.
Stevens advises those who want to improve social media to treat others well. He said that social media is what we make it and we need to start taking responsibility for the part we play.
