Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Half of Americans want the internet to be a free speech zone. What does that mean?

free speech
Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

Half of Americans want the internet to be a free speech zone. But what does that mean?

With Elon Musk preparing to take control of Twitter, users and observers are wondering what it will mean for content moderation on the platform. But there’s a broader question surrounding free speech on the internet, and Americans are, as usual, divided along party lines.

Half of Americans believe the internet “should be a free speech zone, where speech should be uncensored,” according to a new poll by YouGov, with Republicans far more in favor of the concept than Democrats.


Nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent) agreed that the internet should be uncensored, compared to 34 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of independents. But that’s a vague statement that leaves a lot to interpretation.

“I’m not even sure there’s consensus of what a free speech zone actually means,” said India McKinney, director of federal affairs for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which advocates for digital privacy and free speech.

And as McKinney noted, the First Amendment protects people from government interference in speech. Private businesses are not covered and social media platforms must provide some content moderation unless they are willing to overwhelm users with spam.

“It’s actually impossible to completely stop content moderation," she said. “Truly eliminating content moderation means inundating people with spam. It keeps systems functional.”

A number of conservative-focused social media platforms have been launched in recent years in an attempt to attract users away from Facebook and Twitter, which banned Donald Trump and other Republicans for spreading disinformation.

Those platforms, like Parler, Getter and Trump’s own Truth Social, say they do not censor users. So far they have had mixed results in building an audience. Truth Social had a rocky launch and recently dropped down the list of most downloaded apps before surging back to the top this week.

Conservatives have long been critical of Facebook and Twitter, alleging the platforms uses algorithms that help the political left. However, conservative users like Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity and Dan Bongino regularly have some of the most popular posts on Facebook.

Musk has said he wants Twitter to be a center for free speech that is fair to all parties.

He attempted to explain his intent on Tuesday, but his explanation – “By ‘free speech’, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law” – left many users concerned about the platform being a home for disinformation and hate speech.

And others found opportunities to tweak Musk himself.

"When people like Elon Musk say they are 'free speech absolutists' we should treat that with a great deal of skepticism, especially coming from a billionaire who has often tried to squelch the speech of those under his employ and who operates within a broader political economy where essentially money equals speech," said Victor Pickard, co-director of the Media, Inequality & Change Center at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication. "We are not talking about a democratically governed public square when we're talking about discursive spaces on the internet."

EFF touts the "Santa Clara Principles," which cover transparency and accountability, as a better way to manage content on social media.

Amid ongoing claims of “cancel culture,” YouGov also asked people whether the internet makes it easier to share one’s opinion without facing consequences. Here, the numbers were reversed.

Again, 49 percent of respondents agreed that the internet does make that easier. However, while 62 percent of Democrats said yes, only 46 percent of Republicans agreed (along with 45 percent of independents).

The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted March 22-25 and has a margin of error of 3.5 percent.


Read More

AI, Reality, and the Pygmalion Effect: Why Human Judgment Still Matters
Woman typing on laptop at wooden table with breakfast.

AI, Reality, and the Pygmalion Effect: Why Human Judgment Still Matters

When the World goes Mad, one must accept Madness as Sanity, since Sanity is, in the last analysis, nothing but the Madness on which the Whole World happens to agree. (George Bernard Shaw)

Among the most prolific and famous playwrights of the 20th century, Shaw wrote “Pygmalion,” the play upon which “My Fair Lady” was based. Pygmalion was a Greek mythological figure, a sculptor from Cyprus, who fell in love with the statue he created. Aphrodite turned his sculpture into a real woman, promoting the idea that the “created” is greater than the “creator.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit
a sign with a question mark and a question mark drawn on it

Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit

In March, First Lady Melania Trump hosted an AI-powered humanoid robot at the White House during the Fostering the Future Together Global Coalition Summit, and introduced Plato, a humanoid educator marketed as a replacement for teachers that could homeschool children. A humanoid educator that speaks multiple languages, is always available, and draws on a vast store of information could expand access in meaningful ways. But the evidence suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits, that adoption will be uneven, and that the families most likely to adopt Plato will bear those risks disproportionately.

Research on excessive technology use in childhood has found consistent results. Young children and teenagers who spend too much time with screens are more likely to experience reduced physical activity, lower attention spans, depression, and social anxiety. On the same day that Melania Trump introduced Plato, a California jury ruled that Meta and YouTube contributed to anxiety and depression in a woman who began using social media at age 6, a reminder that the consequences of under-tested technology on children can be severe and long-lasting.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less