Spangler Blog Post 7

 

Shiffrin thinker-based approach to free speech does an excellent job of accounting for people’s ability and need to form their own opinions. The way she sets up the idea is almost like a blueprint for building ‘the thinking individual.’ She briefly touches on the possible limitations that should be placed on corporate business speech, due to its “‘forced profit orientation’ and [the fact that] it does not ‘represent a manifestation of individual freedom of choice’,” (99). I believe that this is a great point and assists in preventing “corporate dictatorships,” (109) that she later alludes to.

However, in her discussion of censorship, on page 109, she notes that “the size, power, and ubiquity of the state…represent a more daunting threat to the disparate threats that arrive from various and varied private sources,” (109). However, almost encouraging the question, she notes that this strength becomes negligible in scenarios where corporations “control vast amounts of resources and have a ubiquitous presence,” (109).

When we consider the modern state of affairs, especially post-COVID, not only is it clear the resources that corporations have at their disposal, but also the influence they have on our interactions with one another. When we consider Facebook, which owns Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram, it is almost impossible to avoid these platforms if one wishes to engage with other people, especially over the past year where social interaction has been limited almost exclusively to the virtual. People get their news, entertainment, information, and communication through a single entity. The ramifications of a company like Facebook’s ability to alter and skew which speech is viewed and the way in which certain kinds of speech are presented are so great that I do not believe it is a stretch to say they have far more impact on the public discourse than the government. The public discourse is heavily responsible for how people “engage in free-ranging sincere communication,” (80) on prevalent topics, and the discussion it breeds allows for people to exchange ideas in a constructive and meaningful way that can lead to tangible change in the population’s opinions. The Facebook algorithm is dictated by profit incentives, showing people only what they want to see, thus presenting a warped image of the public discourse and limiting the individual’s ability to engage with it. On a thinkers-based approach, would it not make sense to ensure that these channels for communication are not being manipulated for the corporate motives, given that they have surpassed the state in their “ubiquitous presence”? Further, I wonder what kind of regulation Shiffrin believes is necessary for freedom of speech to be protected while these channels remain the primary mode of human interaction.