As social media platforms grapple with the globalization of their creations, they are increasingly coming into conflict with the vast diversity of global perspectives on what constitutes “acceptable speech” and the fact that America’s sacrosanct enshrinement of free speech is shared with few other countries. Despite growing calls for governmental intervention, the major platforms have remained steadfastly committed to the notion of a single set of global conduct rules applied equally to the entire planet. Is a single set of global content rules even possible in our diverse world?
Much of the web’s early success owes itself to its decentralized nature. As each country awoke to the web’s potential, it was able to shape it in ways its domestic society viewed as best aligned with their cultural and moral beliefs and standards.
The ability of countries to shape the nascent web to their needs allowed it to propagate largely unimpeded. Countries were free to ban content they disapproved of, such as content critical of their government, hate speech, pornography, terrorism and other culturally objectional material. The restrictions of one country had no impact on citizens of another, allowing the web to develop as a patchwork of culturally-accommodating rules.
The rise of social media platforms in the past decade and a half upended this uneasy truce as they rapidly centralized the web inside their walled gardens and constructed single global acceptable speech guidelines that applied to all countries universally.
Suddenly those countries with strict bans on terrorism content found themselves in direct conflict with Twitter’s absolute refusal to impinge upon the free speech rights of terrorists and their sympathizers. Only in the fact of immense government pressure did Twitter finally relent.
Similarly, Facebook took little meaningful action against hate speech in Germany until the government passed new legislation and threatened additional laws, prompting the company to move swiftly to bring its content rules in the country more in light with government demands.
Over time the platforms’ idealistic visions of free speech for all collided headfirst with the reality that is doing business across the world’s diverse cultures.
Confronted with the prospect of legislative constraints or even outright bans on operating in countries with less generous free speech protections, the companies gradually began enforcing global rules with local addendums.
Yet, the neocolonialism of a set of Silicon Valley companies enforcing American cultural practices upon the world, forcing what citizens of each country see and say to conform to Western beliefs, has created increasing conflict with foreign governments, especially around issues like terrorism and hate speech.
In response, it is looking increasingly likely that foreign governments may seek to impose greater autonomy to enforce their domestic acceptable speech guidelines within their own borders, rather than continue to permit Silicon Valley to set global rules for the entire world.
If successful, this decentralization of content moderation would return the web to its original roots and would eliminate many of the greatest sources of conflict in today’s moderation efforts.
Reimagining social platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram as globally connected networks with locally different conduct rules would mirror the early web’s decentralized success by allowing nations to reestablish sovereignty over protecting their citizens online while still reaping the benefits of a globalized web.
Putting this all together, the great dream of social media was to bring the world together but as the world’s incredibly diverse cultures have come into increasing conflict on social media, we have been reminded that there is no single set of universal rules governing speech that are acceptable to all nations.
Part of the dream of centralized rules were that they would forcibly export American values of democracy and an absolute guarantee of freedom of speech, even hate speech and terrorism, to the entire planet in a form of digital neocolonialism. The reality is that governments have predictably stood up to these gross violations of their cultural norms, using the force of law to increasingly fragment the once-unified global rules of the social platforms, forcing myriad exceptions, exemptions and country-specific rules.
Looking to the future, it would appear the most likely path forward for social platforms is to embrace the world’s great diversity rather than seek to overcome it.
In the end, the idea of forcing the entire world to adhere to one single set of content rules designed to bring every country into line with American free speech standards, it looks increasingly likely that the future of the web will look like it began: decentralized.
