In my last post, I briefly mentioned this point about free speech from Trump's recent memo on "Defending American Companies and Innovators From Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties":
The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative shall investigate whether any act, policy, or practice of any country in the European Union or the United Kingdom has the effect of requiring or incentivizing the use or development of United States companies’ products or services in ways that undermine freedom of speech and political engagement or otherwise moderate content, and recommend appropriate actions to counter such practices under applicable authorities.
Along the same lines, a White House fact sheet says:
The Administration will review whether any act, policy, or practice in the European Union or United Kingdom incentivizes U.S. companies to develop or use products and technology in ways that undermine free speech or foster censorship.
I'm thinking out loud a bit here, but I have a few reactions.
First, while there are a small number of free speech proponents for whom anything goes with speech, most people have at least some speech they want to see restricted, with the particular speech they find objectionable varying based on where they are on the political spectrum (e.g., flag burning for some, hate speech for others). For the purposes of the Trump administration's efforts noted above, an important point is that different countries have different values related to speech. The U.S. is probably the most protective of speech, with other countries more willing to impose restrictions. I am skeptical that these cultural differences can be reconciled, and I don't think efforts to push back through trade measures such as tariffs will have much success. Prodding the Europeans to be "more like us" on speech policies isn't going to work any more than prodding them to allow hormone-treated beef has worked. I do think it makes sense for the companies affected by these speech regulations to express their views directly to the governments doing the regulating, but U.S. government efforts here will probably fall flat for the most part.
Second, with regard to the general issue of tech companies using content moderation, I think content moderation is generally a good thing and companies should do it and be transparent about what they are doing. Different people want different online experiences, so there is room for experimentation here. There are a few people who want a speech free for all, and there are web sites and apps that provide it. However, most people want to have some restrictions in place, and ideally what we would see in the marketplace is different sites/apps offering different experiences tailored to particular consumer demands. A decentralized system where social networks can connect to each other while offering different content moderation policies may be a good way to achieve this.
Finally, with regard to government regulation of companies' content moderation practices, I worry that while well-intentioned, this might not go well in practice. For one thing, political leadership shifts back and forth over time, so you may get the regulation you want one day, but then after an election takes place you will be horrified by the new regulation. In addition, the regulation might be too restrictive and close off possibilities for content moderation that some people would like to see. On the other hand, perhaps rules simply requiring transparency in relation to content moderation are limited enough that they would remain useful regardless of who was in charge and what they were trying to accomplish. But I would need to look more closely at some specific regulations in this area to come to a firmer conclusion on this point.
