Helberger, Natali. “The Political Power of Platforms: How Current Attempts to Regulate Misinformation Amplify Opinion Power.” Digital Journalism, 2020, vol. 8, no. 6, 842-854.
Summary and Review
Natali Helberger asserts that governments should treat social media platforms like media companies (i.e., CNN, the New York Times), instead of like e-commerce or tech companies (e.g., Amazon, Microsoft), which has been their approach and is the basis of European regulations proposed in 2019. The e-commerce approach, Helberger claims, poses a grave threat to the pluralism on which democracies depend (849).
Helberber bases her argument on opinion power or “the ability of the media to influence processes of individual and public opinion formation” (845). Media regulation is based on that definition because historically, governments have acknowledged that the media plays a unique role in shaping opinion and because imbalances in free speech “can pose a danger to a pluralistic media landscape and ultimately democracy” (Helberger 846).
Tech and e-commerce regulations don't cover free speech and haven't kept up with innovations that led to the creation of speech-based platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Reddit. Helberger's concern is that speech platforms have at least as much opinion power as media but are treated like “intermediaries and facilitators of the speech of others” instead of like the “wielders of considerable opinion power” that they are (843). These regulations harm free speech, plurality, and the democracy that depends on them by allowing platform owners to decide which speech can be expressed and which opinions can be spread. In many cases, owners use their personal political biases and beliefs about free speech to form their platforms' regulatory policies, leaving them susceptible to imbalance (Helberger 845-847). A better solution would be to apply regulatory policies governing journalism.
Though Helberger’s article is longer and more technical than necessary—often repeating the same point or definitions—it provides information every citizen of a democracy should know. That's especially true given the 2022 debate between Elon Musk and Twitter's board members. Musk accused the members of censorship based on politically-motivated policies. He documented this accusations with many examples and sought transparency regarding Twitter's algorithms, shadow-banning practices, and bot account numbers. Though board members would earn a hefty profit from selling to Musk, they initially implemented a "poison pill" strategy to dilute shares and stop Musk's purchase because they didn't want completely free speech allowed on the platform and feared their policies political biases would be revealed.
Helberger’s article should be assigned as part of any unit on media literacy or information literacy, especially given its relevance to current events. It could be paired with coverage of an event similar to Musk's attempt to purchase Twitter as a means of practicing narrative analysis and applying journalism ethics.
Lesson Plan: Defining and Governing Free Speech Activity
After students have read Helberger's article, have them write their own definitions of "free speech" and "censorship," either in class or as homework. Then, put students in small groups and have them complete the following:
Write each group member's definitions on the whiteboard. Compare and contrast the definitions, noting their strengths.
Create a new definition of each phrase that reflects the group's collective perspective and incorporates individual definitions' strengths.
Share your group's definitions with the class.
Facilitate a discussion of the definitions using these questions:
What do groups' definitions have in common?
What are the most significant differences among groups' definitions?
In current American society, whom do you think is most likely to censor free speech? Why?
Who should decide if censorship has gone too far?
What, if any, types of speech should be regulated? Why?
Who should regulate that free speech? How?
Who should decide whether someone's free speech has been suppressed or violated?
Evaluation of Activity Participation
Use the Synchronous Activity Rubric or, if online and asynchronous, use the Asynchronous Discussion Rubric, to evaluate students' contributions.
Lesson Plan: Evaluating Free-Speech Policies Activity
After students have read Helberger's article, put them in small groups and ask them to complete the following:
Choose a social media platform you use and discuss why you think social media platforms' policies on free speech are or aren't biased.
Imagine you are Twitter's executive board and write a policy for what speech will and/or won't be allowed on Twitter.
Explain how you will enforce your Twitter speech policy. Consider what, if anything, will happen to a user who violates the policy once, twice, multiple times. Include consideration of
whether different types of violations require different types of consequences (e.g., warnings, fines, banishment, temporary suspension, etc.).
whether policies and/or consequences will vary for individual users versus organizations.
whether advertising is subject to the same policy as users' speech.
Have each group share its policy with the class and facilitate a discussion of the policies' similarities and differences. Include discussion of different platforms' needs and considerations.
Evaluation of Activity Participation
Use the Synchronous Activity Rubric or, if online and asynchronous, use the Asynchronous Discussion Rubric, to evaluate students' contributions.