A clean slate for social media giants?

Credit: Getty Images/sorbetto
Over the weekend, prominent right-wing activist Candace Owens was suspended from Twitter after she urged residents of Michigan to reopen businesses and go to work in defiance of stay-at-home orders by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, whom she branded a “dictator.” A Twitter representative was quoted as saying that Owens was in violation of new, COVID-19 era rules which forbid encouraging individuals to act contrary to official public-health guidance intended to reduce the spread of the disease.
While Twitter is a private corporation not bound by the First Amendment and is within its right to suspend or ban anyone for any reason, its leadership has consistently presented the platform as a forum for free speech. From the standpoint of the cultural values underpinning the First Amendment, banning people for questioning government policy is sure to strike many as un-American.
Some people who have expressed dismay at the COVID-19 denialism and conspiracy theories Owens has peddled in recent weeks have nonetheless criticized the decision to suspend her, arguing that such noxious speech should be countered with better speech, not shut down. Others say that in an emergency, public safety justifies curbing the spread of disinformation that could put people in danger. Still others argue that from a pragmatic standpoint, suspending or banning agitators like Owens will only inflame her following even more.
But the question of social media policies under a public health emergency has many more complicated aspects.
As more of our lives shift to virtual spaces in the age of social distancing and self-isolation, online platforms are becoming even more prominent as the prime location for socializing. This makes bans and suspensions — which Twitter and Facebook often hand out quite liberally, or perhaps illiberally — much more onerous than before.
A few days ago, I talked on Skype to a now-banned Twitter friend, Andrew Gleason, an Oregon resident in his late 20s who has autism and is battling depression exacerbated by the lockdown and the ban. Gleason’s account was permanently suspended in February for unclear reasons (possibly tweets criticizing a transgender activist organization that advocates puberty blockers for minors seeking gender reassignment). In his case, Twitter did not need to give reasons because Gleason’s previous account had been banned over some miscommunications and misunderstood jokes — problems that he says are especially likely for people on the autism spectrum.
Other people have been banned from Twitter and Facebook for satirical posts intended to mock racism or homophobia that were misconstrued as bigoted. Still others have been targeted by people with a grudge who have encouraged the mass reporting of their accounts.
There is also the problem of manifestly unequal treatment. Many conservatives say Twitter is biased in favor of liberals and progressives, and there is certainly some limited evidence of uneven enforcement. But celebrities, whether on the left or the right — starting with our Troll-in-Chief — also routinely get away with things for which an ordinary Joe or Jane would be quickly banned. Even Owens has the option of returning if she deletes her offending tweet.
Perhaps, in these extraordinary circumstances, the social media giants should consider a general amnesty for everyone except people who have used these platforms for illegal purposes such as fraud or criminal harassment. They should also experiment with creative solutions to the gargantuan task of moderation, such as recruiting more volunteers across the political spectrum to review complaints.
In a post-COVID-19 world, we face a “new normal.” It’s a good time for a clean slate.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor to Reason magazine.