listen to this articleIn many ways, the Internet developed spontaneously and unregulated, much like the American Wild West. Just as we have glorified the lawlessness and idealistic opportunities of the time through hundreds of thousands of novels and films, we have decentralized the Internet with its unique freedom to find community and diversify opinions. I came to recognize it as a democratic place. .
But in reality, the western frontier is a cruel and difficult place, and the internet, too, cannot be so easily categorized as a pure force of free speech and democracy. In recent years, debate has raged over what should be regulated on the Internet, how much regulation is needed, and who has the right (or is expected) to do so.
“I think this is very contrary to the American ethos,” said Greg Blatt, an executive with more than 20 years of experience leading some of the nation’s largest internet companies. “So what I’m saying is that the essence of this country, and what still makes our system unique, is this incredible distrust of centralization of power. I agree with that. I don’t trust regulating the way people talk about it because I think it concentrates power in the hands of people I don’t know.”
After beginning his career in corporate law, Blatt has held leadership positions at a number of American companies in the Internet sector. InterActivCorp (IAC) is a company that owns Ticketmaster, Expedia, Hotels.com, Home Shopping Network, as well as The Daily Beast, Vimeo, and other media ventures, where Mr. Blatt served as general counsel, and then the Match.com business, where he is CEO. , and he served as his CEO of IAC itself. He later became the CEO of his IAC’s Match Group, which online stores all of his dating-related assets and makes them public. While he served as the CEO of his Match Group, he also served as his CEO of its fast-growing subsidiary, Tinder.
The ability to express oneself freely has long been considered one of the pillars of a functioning democracy, but exactly how to balance that with protecting others is a question of democracy. It has puzzled theorists for hundreds of years. Nineteenth-century philosopher John Stuart Mill’s seminal essay “On Liberty” argues that we need to distinguish between freedom to speak and freedom to act. He argued that verbal and written encouragement is not action, and that there should be no barriers to expressing opinions.
Continuing this train of thought, for Mill we should be free to express even unpleasant lies, for only then can a lie be exposed as a fraud. . While in other parts of the world, such as the United Kingdom and France, the law allows for free speech unless the government legislates otherwise, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits laws that restrict free speech. It is famous for being there.
Blatt argues that whether we like it or not, the First Amendment is a fact of American life, so any consideration of regulating free speech must begin with an interpretation of its pillars. points out.
“I start there. It’s not, ‘What would I do if I were king?’ It’s, ‘What is actually possible in this?'” Blatt said. “We haven’t found a great solution to this problem yet. And when we don’t find a great solution to a free speech problem, we say leave it alone.”
In 2022, market research firm YouGov conducted a poll of 1,000 American adults to determine how Americans think the internet is affecting free speech. As a result, most of those surveyed believed that the Internet has made it easier for people to share their opinions widely and anonymously, and that it has also made it easier for large groups to collectively shame individuals for their opinions. Agreed. However, most people also agree that the Internet has increased access to a diverse range of opinions, and about half agree that the Internet has made it easier to share their opinions without facing consequences. Agreed.
The study further highlights the challenges of free speech and the Internet. The Internet is both a powerful tool for disseminating ideas and dangerous unexplored territory. The COVID-19 pandemic has become an example of why we need to address these difficult questions proactively rather than reactively. Whether it’s government or business, making the wrong choice can quickly erode trust in an organization.
“I think companies should be moderate, but I think we’ve lost trust, so I want to be as humble as possible in terms of imposing my decisions on a lot of people. It seems to me that on media platforms, what people say is part of the product and they should be able to control the product they are offering to the public.”
The YouGov poll supports Blatt’s hypothesis, with 59% of those surveyed saying freedom of speech does not mean an obligation for social media platforms to amplify or widely disseminate everyone’s opinions. I answered that I don’t think so.
When it comes to online dating platforms, Blatt said the transactional nature of apps makes them less susceptible to the difficult questions faced by social media platforms. Communication is more direct, issues are usually related to profanity or suggestions, and community he attributes guidelines.
“I’m a person who values civility, so I think there should be more enforcement,” Blatt said. “The speech you are moderating is neither political nor of public interest, nor is it even public; it is usually the private speech of two people on the platform. As such, this is complicated for a variety of reasons. But it’s not really for free speech reasons. And frankly, altruism aside, it’s just bad for business. It’s ultimately not good. So things fall into line there. .”
While many issues surrounding free speech and the Internet are intertwined with other social issues such as politics, the First Amendment ultimately prevails. Blatt recalls the old adage that “the best form of government is a benevolent monarchy, but it is very difficult to rely on the fact that a monarch will be benevolent.”
“This is the foundation of our entire system. Everywhere, that’s the foundation of our system. That’s the nature of America. We don’t want too much power concentrated in the hands of the people who should be dealing with certain problems.” I’d rather put up with certain issues than have them. That’s the price we pay for our freedom. I don’t want to make important decisions about what I can say or hear from someone I don’t know. I really don’t know how to regulate speech without having them make those decisions for us, and I, and generally speaking, we don’t trust them to make those decisions for us. ” Blatt said.
