Conspiracy Theories

I just tried to take a nap and was unsuccessful. When I’m unsuccessful at sleeping, it’s usually because my mind is racing. This time it was on conspiracy theories. Personally, I find conspiracy theories to be fascinating. The way I look at them is as though they’re thought experiments, designed to make you think of scenarios from a different perspective.

Over the past couple of years, social media has eradicated a lot of conspiracy theories from their various platforms. The removal of conspiracy theories from platforms like YouTube and other social media sites can be attributed to a combination of factors, including the proliferation of misinformation, the impact of echo chambers, and the platforms’ evolving understanding of their role in content curation.

In the United States, freedom of speech is important to Americans. While your right to free speech is protected from censorship from the US government, or other government agencies, it does not protect that right in a business or company. In the realm of private businesses, such as social media platforms like YouTube, the scenario is different. These platforms are owned by private corporations and are not public spaces in the legal sense. Therefore, they have the right to enforce their own rules and guidelines regarding the content that appears on their platforms. This can include removing content that violates their community standards or terms of service, regardless of whether that content would be protected under the First Amendment if it were in a public forum.

This distinction often becomes a topic of debate, especially in the context of social media platforms that play a significant role in public discourse. While these platforms advocate for free expression, they also have responsibilities to their users and the public, including preventing harm, misinformation, and harassment. Thus, they often find themselves in the challenging position of balancing these responsibilities with the broad ethos of free speech.

I find it difficult to reconcile though, that some of these “conspiracy theories” may be based in fact and yet are hidden from us because of this censorship. The debate over the origins of SARS-CoV-2, for example, highlights the complexities of categorizing certain theories as misinformation. Initially, social media platforms like Facebook censored posts claiming COVID-19 was man-made or manufactured, considering them misinformation. However, as the political establishment began supporting a fuller investigation into the virus’s origins, Facebook revised its policy to allow discussion on this topic. This situation underscores the challenge in determining what constitutes misinformation, especially when new facts or perspectives emerge that shift the understanding of an event or topic​*.

The broader issue, therefore, is not just about the factual accuracy of conspiracy theories but also about the role of social media platforms in regulating speech and the potential impacts of their decisions on public discourse. It raises questions about who should have the authority to decide what is true or false and the potential consequences of suppressing ideas before all relevant facts are available. The handling of such sensitive and often politically charged information by private companies, under various pressures, adds another layer of complexity to the debate.

In conclusion, while there’s a recognition of the potential harm that misinformation and conspiracy theories can cause, there’s also a need for a careful and nuanced approach in dealing with them, keeping in mind the principles of free speech and the evolving nature of truth in a highly connected and rapidly changing world.

Feel free to share your thoughts and opinions in the comments section.