Every few years, civil discourse in the United States reaches a heightened state often between two, sometimes dozens, of polarized positions as we battle among ourselves about the law, morality, civility and the direction of our country.

This type of a back-and-forth was acknowledged as a serious, fundamental and very necessary part of our democracy by the Founding Fathers. A vigorous debate settled by compromise, legislative decision and a vote by either the majority of the population or a majority of their elected officials was meant to settle that debate, which could then be litigated in the courts if necessary to decide if that course of action was in keeping with our laws, traditions and constitution.

More recently, that public forum has moved from the statehouse or town hall or public venue to social media platforms, where no protections of minority voices, or equal time, or fair debate are guaranteed. Algorithms and ad sales determine who has the loudest voice and who gets to speak to the greatest number of users. For platforms like LinkedIn one can get the best linkedin selling tool and gt help to manage their profile easily.

Social media is a wondrous, shiny place. One can learn how to fix a transmission, debate who was the best James Bond or see photos of our loved ones half a world away uploaded just seconds earlier. All this data is readily accessible with a few keystrokes, mouse taps and swipes of our thumbs.

Yet, do not be confused for a moment: Social media platforms do not exist to benefit democratic civil discourse or republican ideals — they exist to make money for shareholders either through direct marketing to users or by selling users’ personal infor­mation to other companies. You are not a concerned citizen or a voter on social media, you are 1s and 0s to be traded for cash.

As long as you use social media with this in mind, they are perfectly fine symbiotic platforms to espouse your ideas on government, share photos of your chil­dren with family members or plan bake sales.

The problem with using social media for polit­ical debate comes when users mistakenly believe that Constitutional protections, namely the First Amendment, applies online to social media platforms that are privately owned companies directed by boards of shareholders.

The First Amendment only applies to the govern­ment and only prevents the government from censoring the content of what you say.

Social media platforms are instead like giant big box stores. If people go inside and cause a huge disturbance, security guards may ask them to stop, undo what they’ve done or even kick them outside the building and not let them back in.

Is that censorship? Yep. Does it violate the First Amendment? Nope. Is it right or wrong? That’s up to you.

If the federal government or state governments activated and operated a social media platform — FedBook or ’MericaSpace or Indepenstagram — open to all Americans, then yes, the case could be made that those government-sponsored platforms could not censor content. But if the government ran such a platform, it would take weeks to log on, months to get anything fixed, posts would require filling out forms in triplicate and it would cost four times what it was originally promised.

OK, bashing government with a series of overused tropes might have been too easy a joke, but the point is that for the time being, privately-owned social media platforms will remain our online forum.

During these times of COVID-19, the efficacy and legality of face mask mandates, a polarizing presi­dential election cycle, economic upheaval caused by shutdowns, nationwide protests against police violence and local state and federal elections coming in August and again in November, there is plenty to discuss.

Some social media platforms have decided that some of this content posted by users violates their terms of service and are taking steps to slow down some users, remove the content of others and, in some cases, outright banning or blocking users from accessing their platforms.

Is that censorship? Yep. Does it violate the First Amendment? Nope. Is it right or wrong? That’s up to you.

Christopher Fox Graham
Managing Editor