When social media fails the people

In a technology-based global society, sources for free speech like Facebook and Twitter are indicators of the extent of societal restrictions in oppressive regimes. When social media sites move abroad, they have a new challenge to open platforms for expression and dissent while remaining able to legally operate within the country. But balancing these two responsibilities is difficult when governments are constantly asking social media sites to take down undesirable content.

According to Twitter’s most recent report, there was an 84 percent increase in the number of global requests to remove content from the site between July 1, 2014 and Dec. 31, 2014. Additionally, three new countries asked for tweets to be taken down: Kazakhstan, Kenya and Argentina. The worst offender is Turkey, with 477 removal requests to Twitter in this six-month period. Next is Russia with 91 requests, followed by Germany with 43. The United States has submitted 26 government requests and six court orders, but none have been upheld. Overall, 85 accounts and 1,982 tweets worldwide were removed in just this period.

Facebook is also blocking content deemed illegal or dangerous by host nations. A shocking 1,893 requests were granted in Turkey between January and June 2014, which is substantial when compared to the 34 successful requests in Germany and nine in Britain. But it is India that takes the cake in the number of Facebook removal requests from January to June 2014 with 4,960.

Sometimes, restrictions on expression on social media are for cultural or religious reasons, like Turkey’s court orders to force Facebook to take down pages showing Prophet Mohammed. Similarly, 42 of Germany’s appeals were because of the use of prohibited symbols or discriminatory statements on Twitter. But more often, it is politically driven. Of the 27 removal requests made to Twitter in Brazil in the second half of 2014, 18 were related to the presidential election in October.

Such restriction is also political in Russia. Many requests are justified by Federal Law 398-FZ, which allows the government to “restrict access to content that … leads to ‘mass actions.’”Twitter denied Russia’s requests to blatantly censor dissidents, but Facebook blocked the event page for activist Alexei Navalny’s protest on Jan. 15 on the grounds that it was an “unsanctioned mass event.” 

Why is this censorship so prevalent? Because social media sites like Facebook and Twitter allow it.

For both companies, the pull of global business is too strong to overcome whatever moral high ground the companies might seek to take. Facebook and Twitter have the opportunity to expand into untapped markets where the younger generations are moving online. This is the case in Turkey, where Twitter was recently blocked when a picture of the execution of a prominent prosecutor was posted. It has since been reinstalled, but only after the picture was taken down. This proves that the power of the market is too strong to deny requests. Facebook and Twitter’s compliance can be seen as prioritizing business over global rights.

Even worse, Facebook and Twitter have been accused of caving to repressive governments. By shutting down unfavorable content and offering users’ account information, social media becomes an agent in global censorship.

That being said, in order to remain legal abroad, some suppression is necessary. If Facebook and Twitter do not comply with any government removal requests, they risk being kicked out of the country. The solution is to grant some but not all of the requests, thus enabling the companies to remain a platform for expression and connection.

It is a balance. In most cases, content is only removed in its country of origin if such speech is illegal. Thus, Facebook and Twitter, despite censoring some content, remain a source of free speech.