Skip to main content

Internet free speech: We’re doing it wrong

internet free speech wrong steubenville

When you ask the kind of geeks who sit around pondering the value of our connected digital world what makes the Internet so great, one answer always pops up: Openness and free speech. Just look at how much access we have to the world’s information, they say. Look at how free speech has thrived and spread throughout most of the globe. The Arab Spring! Occupy Wall Street! “Breaking Bad” episode recaps! And I agree, all those are great examples of the way the Internet has made life better for countless people. But there is a sad fact about our newfound ability to disseminate whatever we want, anytime we want: We just aren’t very good at it. 

The most poignant recent example of this comes from the New Yorker’s Ariel Levy, who took a deep dive into the Web’s role in the case of Steubenville, Ohio, football players, two of whom were found guilty earlier this year of raping an intoxicated teenage girl from West Virginia.

Related Videos

Our collective online behavior in cases like Steubenville and Boston could eventually have negative effects on the amazing gift of broad free speech online.

Levy’s excellent reporting will undoubtedly evoke sickening outrage at those who were responsible for violating a young girl. But it does something else, too: It shows just what happens when we, the couched commentators of the Web, try to take matters into our own hands – often acting on bad information. 

This excerpt from the long-read piece highlights the problem:

In trying to determine what happened in Steubenville, the police and the public began with the same information, gathered from the same online sources: ugly tweets, the Instagram photograph, and a deeply disturbing video. But while the police commandeered phones, interviewed witnesses, and collected physical evidence from the crime scene, readers online relied on collaborative deduction. The story they produced felt archetypally right. The “hacktivists” of Anonymous were modern-day Peter Parkers—computer nerds who put on a costume and were transformed into superhero vigilantes. The girl from West Virginia stood in for every one of the world’s female victims: nameless, faceless, stripped of identity or agency. And there was a satisfying villain. Teen-age boys who play football in Steubenville—among many other places—are aggrandized and often do end up with a sense of thuggish entitlement.

In versions of the story that spread online, the girl was lured to the party and then drugged. While she was delirious, she was transported in the trunk of a car, and then a gang of football players raped her over and over again and urinated on her body while her peers watched, transfixed. The town, desperate to protect its young princes, contrived to cover up the crime. If not for Goddard’s intercession, the police would have happily let everyone go. None of that is true.

That’s right – none of that is true. And yet, in the real-time frenzy of Twitter, Facebook, and blog comment sections, we have a culture in which the nitty-gritty truth does not matter, as long as the overall narrative of any given story is right. And from that flimsy platform, we spring forward with threatening or derogatory words directed at whomever we believe are the villains.

This blind beast of online fury reared its ugly head in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. Reddit and Twitter users mistakenly identified Sunil Tripathi, a Boston-area college student who had been missing for a month, as one of the possible terrorists.

Law enforcement authorities quickly cleared Tripathi’s name. But, as The New York Times recently reported, it was not nearly quick enough to spare the Tripathi family from the wrath of the Web. Not long after the bombing, Sunli Tripathi’s body was pulled from a river. 

In the real-time frenzy of Twitter, Facebook, and blog comment sections, we have a culture in which the nitty-gritty truth does not matter, as long as the overall narrative of any given story is right.

Most recently, we saw our misuse of the Internet’s quick and dirty communication tools used to threaten the life of Dave Vonderhaar, design director of Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, over a minor game update that had little impact on the game.

These are just a few notable, high-profile examples of how our use of free speech online has become tainted by a desire to be part of events or conversations for which we have little value to add. Twitter and Facebook are littered with garbage comments and unjustified vitriol. Reddit is a cesspool of flash judgments about people or events, by users who think they know what’s right and what’s wrong better than anyone else.

None of this is to say people aren’t entitled to their opinion, or should keep their thoughts to themselves. Nor am I saying that the Web isn’t equally filled with good vibes and positivity – there is just as much of that as there is hateful ignorance and cruelty. But it seems as though the bad stuff has begun to float further towards the top.

What I am trying to say is that our collective online behavior in cases like Steubenville and Boston could eventually have negative effects on the amazing gift of broad free speech online.

First, the spewing of gut reactions to events degrades the value of our collective discourse to the point where what’s being said online contributes little to the overall conversation. If half of the tweets out there are filled with meanness and misinformation, we have taken a step backwards, not the other way around.

Second, our propensity to jump into real-life events with real-life consequences without a full comprehension of either, as exhibited during the Steubenville and Boston fiascos, could lead to less openness in the offline world. Police and government officials may be less willing to reveal information for fear of an online witch-hunt. And victims, like the victim from West Virginia, may be less willing to come forward about crimes committed against them due to the possibility that thousands of Web users will hound them with cruel messages or worse.

In short, as our use of the Web and social media continues to evolve, we must not lose sight of both the power that these tools have, and the possibility that our abuse of them could destroy what we love about them.

(Image via The Daily Beast, all rights reserved)

Editors' Recommendations

Here’s how to find the most popular Internet images in real time
heres find popular internet images oublio

Sometimes (all of the time) I feel like a massive non-tech-savvy dweebus, like when I didn't know what FTW meant and I thought it meant "f*** the world" and everyone made fun of me. It's hard to stay on top of the Internet. I can't even imagine what my dad is going through, since he still signs his tweets "G2G." 
Sometimes we all need help figuring out what's going on in this great big crazy Internet. Which is why Oublio, a website that shows you the most popular image of the day from different online platforms, is remarkable. Since the site selection is limited, it's not representative of everything that's going on online, but it showcases a slice of digital life and shows you user favorites from some of the most beloved websites. 
Visit the site, and you'll be greeted with the most popular image on Reddit. You can change the image to see what's most popular on Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, and Flickr. Facebook's API doesn't allow this kind of query, and Pinterest doesn't have an API yet, so they're off the table at the moment, but by highlighting these five websites, Oublio culls what amounts to a trending lists of images. 
 "Sometimes I get the feeling that there's too much content to process on the internet, even when I just visit my favorite sites and blogs. So I wanted to see how far I could push this idea of content filtering, by just focusing on a very small number of items. This influenced the design of the site too. The goal was for people to be able to understand what the site was about in under a second, so all non-essential elements have been stripped away," site creator Dominic Coey explains. 
Oublio sticks with a few pockets of the Internet, but since these sites are so popular, it gives you a good overview of what's currently popular.
"Each site certainly has a specific character. Celebrities feature quite heavily on Instagram and Twitter. Tumblr and Reddit have more visual puns, and general funny stuff, and Flickr is artsy photos," Coey says. "I'd like to think that this covers a pretty wide range of interests, and that most people would find something they like on any given visit to Oublio. In a sense this is the most social of all social media - it's the stuff that has received the most extreme social validation." 
Social validation doesn't always mean "best," of course, so you might not be impressed by any of the photos that appear on Oublio - but if you're wondering what the images are that everyone else is re-tweeting and upvoting, Oublio is the easiest way to find out. 

Read more
If YouTube is throwing a Music Awards show, we’re gonna handicap it
indie label memo youtube music service awards

So here’s a scenario I’m sure you’re familiar with: Someone in accounting – let’s call her ‘Marci – comes to work on casual Friday sporting a Metallica T-shirt. When that loser Brad snickers about it behind her back, she tells him, loud enough for the whole office to hear, “Suck it, Brad!” And just like that, you’re in love, but you have no idea how to win Marci’s affections.
Well, never fear. I’m a sucker for a few things, including good coffee, fine scotch, sandwiches, and, of course, love, so I’m here to help. Because there are few ways to an officemate’s heart more direct than… wait for it… winning an office pool. And I know you’re thinking, “But the Oscars and the Super Bowl are months away!” Well, someone hasn’t been paying attention, because on Sunday, the good folks at YouTube will throw an awards show together, and now that they’ve announced the nominees, I’m here to help you crush. That. Office pool.
Breakthrough Artist of the Year
Let’s start with the category for nominees that have experienced “the biggest growth in views and subscribers”:

Kendrick Lamar
Macklemore & Ryan Lewis
Naughty Boy

Read more
Nick Bilton, you’re a smart guy but you’ve got this Twitter ‘like’ button thing all wrong
twitter doesnt need like button twiiter

Nick Bilton knows the social Web, there is no doubt. You don't run a tech and Web-focused section for the New York Times - much less write what's shaping up to be the authoritative book on Twitter's origins - without knowing your stuff.
But he's got something wrong: Twitter does not need a Like button.
In an editorial this week, Bilton rightly argues that all social networks borrow features from each other, but veers off course when he questions why Twitter has held off on adding the Like button. And if to that you say, "duh, what about Favoriting?," he says that the two are of different twain because Favoriting can be interpreted in various ways.
He is right about that: We Favorite for different reasons. We Favorite to passively show approval; we hate-Favorite in bouts of sarcasm; we favorite to save for later, like if a tweet contained an interesting link we want to follow up on.
According to Bilton, this makes Favoriting more diverse (if confusing) and multi-dimensional than a Like - which is "just" a Like. Except, of course, when it isn't.
Likes and Favorites are both miniature, contained conversations in and of themselves.

We Like for many of the same reasons we Favorite. Hate-Liking is a real, hilariously-termed thing in which you hit the Like button of something (or someone) you actually hate. It's like the Internet version of convincing that kid in high school you couldn't stand but loved to mess with that he should totally get highlights.
Most often we Like simply to say "I have seen this, I approve of this, I have nothing else to say about this." It's signifies we approve or appreciate (or at least want to look like we do) but don't want to get too involved. Common scenario: Your sister posts umpteen photos of you with her baby on your wall; you are a jerk if you don't respond. Thus, you Like. It's the great bail-out of the Facebook generation, saving us time and energy (and awkward conversations).
There's Liking to flirt. In those early days of stalking/learning about a new crush, you don't want to appear over-eager and go commenting on their every update. A simple Like acts like a digital wink.
And sometimes, it's true, we really do just like something we ... Like. A link to an article we emphatically agree with; an adorable otter video; a hilariously droll status update. Whatever it is, you get it, you agree - you Like.
While most of us probably don't, you can use Likes as a bookmarking tool of sorts, as Twitter users do with Favorites. Your Timeline has a tab showing you what you've Liked, giving you a catalog of your activity.
When I log into Twitter and hit up my Interactions, I mentally sort my retweets, replies, @ messages, and Favorites - and I regard them the same way I do Likes: flippantly. For a brief moment, I try to interpret what the Favoriter meant by the action. Approval? Was it a hate-Favorite? Is he flirting with me? And then I completely move on because these features, Favorites and Likes, are just passive, non-obligatory interactions. They are one-sided, and they die fast. Sure, I might mentally note them ("Nice job on that tweet/status update, Molly - 26 Likes/seven Favorites is nothing to be ashamed about. Self five.") but I move on from there rather quickly. I don't respond or reply, I don't Message or follow; the Like and the Favorite are both miniature, contained conversations in and of themselves.
If Twitter added the Like, then what would the purpose of the Favorite be? Would it become the equivalent of not liking someone, but like-liking them?
This world of digital approval is just as multi-faceted as the real one, despite whatever one-word, simplistic labels social networks use. Let's not make things any more complicated than we already have.

Read more