Hey guys,
If you click the first link, it’ll take you to the research portion of me project––just a good old fashioned research paper. The second link is my creative portion of the project. It’s a original short story, but I tried to weave little pieces of the cases that I presented in the research portion of my project as I thought it would tie in the main focus of my project––censorship and ethics among social media. Enjoy!
Loved reading your project. I think the format of framing your arguments around three case studies is such a good and fun idea. It structured your thoughts nicely. I feel as if discussions I see online about censorship are mostly filled with strawman arguments about what “the other side” is doing with no real substance or evidence. When you add real people and real examples, it keeps the conversation grounded and tied to real projects instead of hypothetical what-if’s. One thing I wish I could’ve seen more of was an expansion of the “Why” section. You mention a tie between social media and its ties to financial incentives, but I feel like it failed to properly expand on how extreme of the circumstances surrounding Covid were. Especially in the beginning of the pandemic, paired with the political narratives being told at the time, these isolated case studies were part of a larger conversation and with the when the consequences of harmful medical misinformation going around at the time, it’s impossible to properly study and thoroughly judge each piece of potential misinformation. If you were to ever continue working on this project, I think this would be a good place to expand upon.
(Also, I’m pretty sure the date in the beginning of Case #1 should be 2020, instead of 2021)
Hi Justin,
Censorship is something that I’m not too familiar with so your project was a pleasant read! I thought the case studies that you included in your project were a good decision as they helped support the argument you were trying to make. One quote that stuck with me was, “I think it’s very scary when we try to suppress scientific thinking and investigation, whatever the reason might be.” While these professors and doctors have worked in this field for a long time and have the data to back up their claims, it’s rather concerning that social media has the power to so easily censor that information just because it’s not something that they like to hear. Like you mentioned, an issue we see is the fact that any other information other than information presented by WHO is not allowed to be taken into consideration. I think censorship should have its guidelines and should not be overused as it prevents the information from being shared among everyone. This is more prevalent than ever because of the COVID vaccination debate and controversies going on. While I think the vaccine is certainly beneficial, I would still like to learn about the reasons why people are hesitating to receive it as maybe they could provide valuable information, assuming that the information is coming from a credible source. It also applies to anything else so that I know I’m making a logical decision.
Overall, I think you did an amazing job in introducing your topic on censorship and thought your short story was a nice tie to the overall message!
Hi Justin,
In my project, I talked a little about censorship as well. It is certainly an important topic to examine in the digital age where so much of one’s content is reliant upon corporate distribution channels. Is it digital self-publishing truly ‘self’ publishing when one has to fit their work into the boundaries set by the platform they are posting on? One has to follow the rules of the platform in order to publish their ideas on it. In my project, I focused more on the removal of copyrighted content and posts that violated community standard policies, such as nudity. It is clear that social media companies have a large amount of say in how we use their services.
Your project highlights the complexities that revolve around the decision to censor a voice in online spaces. The choice should not be taken lightly with each case of possible misinformation being nuanced. Your project highlights how these causes can be looked at from many different perspectives. I was particularly interested in the case of Alex Berenson. While Joe Rogan may see it as case of “egregious censorship that is ideologically based,” I would argue that twitter’s actions were most likely justified. The claim that the vaccine has a “terrible side effect profile” is not reflective of my experience and research. The claim he also made in the tweet saying that it doesn’t “stop infection” is misleading. The vaccine does stop infection, just not all infections. My main idea though is that these cases are nuanced and require multiple perspectives to come to a conclusion that everyone could be happy with. A more transparent post take down procedure could help this problem. Twitter should have cited the specific reasons for the take down and outlined the process in which they came to the conclusion. This could help reduce the controversy around their actions.
Your project highlights a fundamental concern of the digital age: Where does free speech fit into social media? We have made it abundantly clear throughout this class that social media has transformed the way we communicate in the 21st century– so much so, that we have reached a stage where one of our most basic constitutional rights is being questioned. This is frightening in many ways. Here we have social media platforms that have so much influence over our lives, yet each platform gets to decide what is and is not accepted as “legitimate content.” I appreciate the fact that your project raises concerns over the moderation of certain information on these social media platforms, especially with regards to COVID-19.
As I read your paper, though, it did become clear to me that the line between censorship and corporate policy is very blurry. In the case of Berenson, for example, I think Twitter was well within its rights to claim that his claims were spreading misinformation. Berenson’s claim that the vaccine has a “terrible side effect profile” should definitely have some more context to it. What does he exactly mean by this? Short term side effects, like achiness and a fever? Or does he mean long term side effects that might affect a person’s health for the rest of his/her life? And most importantly, where is the data to back this claim? At face value, I could see why Twitter and YouTube would feel obligated to label this claim as “misinformation.”
But was it right for Twitter to ban Berenson’s account? I think in terms of free speech, this was not the right thing to do. No matter how misguided an idea may be, an individual is still guaranteed the right to promote this idea given freedom of speech. Perhaps Twitter could have simply flagged the content as “facilitating the spread of misinformation”, rather than completely deactivating Berenson’s account. Maybe YouTube shouldn’t have taken down the video of Dr. Kory’s senate committee hearing. The bottom line, though, is that social media platforms have the right to remove and ban any information or person that they choose. Until free speech is constitutionally guaranteed on these social media platforms, I think it is hard to hold platforms like Twitter legally accountable for censorship.
I had no idea that doctors and scientists with proper data and facts are being censored on the internet and social media. It would make sense if misinformation is being spread or if the people publishing the information are not qualified professionals. It’s disappointing to see that potentially useful information is being censored just because it doesn’t fit the mainstream ideas. The only way the world can move forward from this pandemic is to look at all the possibilities and not be narrow minded.
The short story was really well written and realistic. The hospital that Dr. Wilder worked at and the Senate didn’t care to look at his research just because it wasn’t a part of the mainstream. It must be very frustrating when this happens to other doctors and scientists who are risking their careers to help the public. After reading this project, I think that the regulations need to be changed for censoring information. Information should be censored if it is truly misinformation.
Hi Justin,
Great job on your project. It was very interesting and captured my attention from the start. I loved the way you formatted the project, even within a traditional pdf format. The use of visuals and structure through headings made it very easy to navigate.
One of the aspects of your project I most appreciated was the explanation and insight into how it is not always a financial disagreement but one over rights and freedom.
I really found your topic to be interesting. I think censorship is a really important topic to be discussed. The case studies that you provided really supported your claims and backed up your argument. I think censorship should have its limits and guidelines so there is a balance in between. I think that misinformation is a problem too. People need to be able to provide credible sources that back up their claims.
Hi Justin,
I really enjoyed reading your project. I think that the topic of censorship is even more important today. I liked how you formatted it around the cases. It was an interesting way to present the information. In your groundwork section, I like how you included a hyperlink to the Free Speech Center that way your reader can check it out for themselves.
I think that maybe instead of automatically kicking people off of the platforms, maybe a warning or a link to the WHO could be displayed. That way people know that the information is false without banning the creator. I think that it does need to be made obvious that the information is wrong, otherwise conspiracy theories can form. I also think that sometimes censorship is a necessity. This was seen with climate change. Most scientists say one thing, but because information can be spread so rapidly, conspiracy theorists believe the few with a loud voice. I do think that these companies have the right to prevent people from using their platform since they are a private company. I guess those that keep getting kicked off will have to keep moving from platform to platform to be heard.
Overall, I think that you made a great project, and I enjoyed reading it.
I remember when you first started your project and we discussed it in peer review, it is great to see it come to life. My favorite part of the essay itself are the cases. I felt as though the cases supported the central idea of the how censorship has become so powerful that even facts that oppose those in power are removed. Even the one you showed in class where there was no misinformation, just bad phrasing of information, which gave a negative connotation to vaccines. It makes one think where we should go from here. I do not use Facebook or Twitter often enough to know that they have been removing posts, without warning. This entire piece made me reflect more on how Instagram puts in warnings of misinformation, but would it ever become extreme enough that our entire page would be warnings?