Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Entertainment Can Improve How Democrats and Republicans See Each Other

Since the development of American mass media culture in the mid-20th century, numerous examples of entertainment media have tried to improve attitudes towards those who have traditionally held little power.

Getty Images, skynesher

Entertainment Can Improve How Democrats and Republicans See Each Other

Entertainment has been used for decades to improve attitudes toward other groups, both in the U.S. and abroad. One can think of movies like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, helping change attitudes toward Black Americans, or TV shows like Rosanne, helping humanize the White working class. Efforts internationally show that media can sometimes improve attitudes toward two groups concurrently.

Substantial research shows that Americans now hold overly negative views of those across the political spectrum. Let's now learn from decades of experience using entertainment to improve attitudes of those in other groups—but also from counter-examples that have reinforced stereotypes and whose techniques should generally be avoided—in order to improve attitudes toward fellow Americans across politics. This entertainment can allow Americans across the political spectrum to have more accurate views of each other while realizing that successful cross-ideological friendships and collaborations are possible.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Must Not Undermine State Efforts To Regulate AI Harms to Children
Congress Must Not Undermine State Efforts To Regulate AI Harms to Children
Getty Images, Dmytro Betsenko

Congress Must Not Undermine State Efforts To Regulate AI Harms to Children

A cornerstone of conservative philosophy is that policy decisions should generally be left to the states. Apparently, this does not apply when the topic is artificial intelligence (AI).

In the name of promoting innovation, and at the urging of the tech industry, Congress quietly included in a 1,000-page bill a single sentence that has the power to undermine efforts to protect against the dangers of unfettered AI development. The sentence imposes a ten-year ban on state regulation of AI, including prohibiting the enforcement of laws already on the books. This brazen approach crossed the line even for conservative U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who remarked, “We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years, and giving it free rein and tying states' hands is potentially dangerous.” She’s right. And it is especially dangerous for children.

Keep ReadingShow less
Microphones, podcast set up, podcast studio.

Many people inside and outside of the podcasting world are working to use the medium as a way to promote democracy and civic engagement.

Getty Images, Sergey Mironov

Ben Rhodes on How Podcasts Can Strengthen Democracy

After the 2024 election was deemed the “podcast election,” many people inside and outside of the podcasting world were left wondering how to capitalize on the medium as a way to promote democracy and civic engagement to audiences who are either burned out by or distrustful of traditional or mainstream news sources.

The Democracy Group podcast network has been working through this question since its founding in 2020—long before presidential candidates appeared on some of the most popular podcasts to appeal to specific demographics. Our members recently met in Washington, D.C., for our first convening to learn from each other and from high-profile podcasters like Jessica Tarlov, host of Raging Moderates, and Ben Rhodes, host of Pod Save the World.

Keep ReadingShow less
True Confessions of an AI Flip Flopper
Ai technology, Artificial Intelligence. man using technology smart robot AI, artificial intelligence by enter command prompt for generates something, Futuristic technology transformation.
Getty Images - stock photo

True Confessions of an AI Flip Flopper

A few years ago, I would have agreed with the argument that the most important AI regulatory issue is mitigating the low probability of catastrophic risks. Today, I’d think nearly the opposite. My primary concern is that we will fail to realize the already feasible and significant benefits of AI. What changed and why do I think my own evolution matters?

Discussion of my personal path from a more “safety” oriented perspective to one that some would label as an “accelerationist” view isn’t important because I, Kevin Frazier, have altered my views. The point of walking through my pivot is instead valuable because it may help those unsure of how to think about these critical issues navigate a complex and, increasingly, heated debate. By sharing my own change in thought, I hope others will feel welcomed to do two things: first, reject unproductive, static labels that are misaligned with a dynamic technology; and, second, adjust their own views in light of the wide variety of shifting variables at play when it comes to AI regulation. More generally, I believe that calling myself out for a so-called “flip-flop” may give others more leeway to do so without feeling like they’ve committed some wrong.

Keep ReadingShow less