I once read about this concept that changed everything I have ever known about the world around me. It came from none other than Stephen Hawking, a man I looked up to profoundly growing up. I will paraphrase heavily, but it came from a chapter in his book Brief Answers to the Big Questions.

He discussed how the transfer rate of information is directly correlated to the evolution of our species. From an evolutionary stand point, information is passed down through DNA. A mutation would be considered new information, which happens roughly one in a million times.

But then, our species discovered how to communicate with each other and the transfer rate increased. We could communicate not only events happening in the present, but also events of the past. We are not born into this world with the knowledge of our ancestors, but we have the ability to communicate that knowledge down to our offspring from generation to generation, benefitting and evolving faster than ever.

Stephen Hawking then explained how the rate of transfer has grown exponentially due to how we pass down knowledge through books. He explained there are more books being written now than it would be possible to catch up and read them all. And with the limitations and slow speed of the sharing of information in the past, think of travelling by horse, newspapers, and carrier pigeon, the internet has deleted all limitations. The shear scale of information that is shared online at any given second cannot be comprehended by the human brain.

During this module of MCO 426, we explored how social media cites can be seen as Digital Town Squares, where anyone can hop on their soap box and tell the masses anything they desire. Some how in the endless noise of these spaces, some manage to get ahold of millions of peoples attention with what they say online.

But as we post our voices to social media, we enter a major gray area that is heatedly debated today. Do we own what we say on social media? And if not, then who does? Who makes the rules? And what are the consequences for those who break the rules?

Platforms such as Facebook and X are the face of the internet and I will be using them as major examples. They both rely on little moderation of content on their platforms. Though, there are rules that users must follow in order to continue using their platform. I often see this battle for free speech online, where people complain a post of theirs is taken down for seemingly no reason. Or when Elon Musk tells us X is focused on free speech, yet clear censorship takes place. But free speech does not apply to other countries unfortunately, and governments across the globe force social platforms to enforce their laws as well.

Digging into the Free Speech Project, I found an article about how X blocked 4 accounts and restricted over 400 tweets relating prior to the presidential election in Turkey. This censorship could have changed the outcome of a countries election, or at least that was the fear. YouTube and X were ordered by the Indian government to remove clips of violent riots happening during 2022. It was more so an ethnic cleansing, as thousands of Muslims were killed during these riots.

A more nuanced example I found in the US. Platforms struggle to take down circulating violent terror attacks. In this particular case, a white supremacist shot and killed several black shoppers in Buffalo, New York. The man livestreamed the event on Twitch which lasted 2 minutes before it was taken down. This was enough for clippers to post to other social platforms. Some may see this as censorship, removing clips of the tragic scene. But videos like those unfortunately create more extremists, so it is required that these videos get taken down.

Despite the power social media platforms have, they do seem to be bullied by many countries from time to time. But these extreme cases do not apply to the 99% of active social media users who stick to their own circles and interests and use Facebook or TikTok or X to keep in touch with friends or media creators. We discussed some copyright issues on this blog before. If I posted some pictures from my vacation for my family to see, do I actually own those photos anymore? For all I know, they are stored in a database somewhere I will never have access to. If my account is deleted, are my photos deleted as well?

What about text based posts? If I posted “Hello World!” to X, do I own that tweet? Do I own the text I just created? If I simply discussed how my day went in a tweet and someone copied and pasted it and got more views, likes, and comments than I did how do I retaliate? The best thing that comes to mind for text based copyright would be song lyrics and poems. But if I created a poem and posted it to X, do I own that poem still? Is it protected under copyright?

With the rise of AI, many companies are searching for data to train LLMs off of. And luckily for Meta and X, they each own two of the largest data sets in the entire world! Turns out, from now on if you participate on these platforms, you give your consent to have all of your data used for algorithm and AI training. So every picture you’ve uploaded, every text you’ve sent, no longer belongs to you.

I feel like most people are very black and white when it comes to government involvement. I would say there are areas the government needs to step in, and areas the government shouldn’t have any control over. So to say that social media would be better if it was decentralized is something extremely hard for me to say. We need rules and regulations, no matter if the government has a grip on social media or not. If you cared enough about participating online in a decentralized environment, there are thousands if not millions of tiny pockets of the internet out there for you.

I would say it is appropriate for the government to step in when it comes to breaking laws online through social media. But that discussion is a whole other can of worms. Primarily, however, I think using people to train AI should be regulated. When I sign up for Instagram it is not my intent to have my data sold and trained off of. Pictures of my family are for my family.

It is inappropriate for a government to step in when it comes to aggressive censorship, pushing agendas and propaganda to civilians through social media, and spreading miss information. Which they currently do, and have been doing for decades.

But in terms of free speech, there is no free speech on platforms like X, Instagram, YouTube, and so on. We do not own what we say on social media, because once we hit post, its on display for the entire world to see. As influential and legendary as Stephen Hawking was, even he didn’t own his own voice.

“Social Media: The New Public Square?”
Georgetown University – Free Speech Project. “Social Media: The New Public Square?” Free Speech Project Blog, 16 Jan. 2025, freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/social‑media‑the‑new‑public‑square/

Twitter Blocks Content in Turkey Prior to Presidential Election
Georgetown University – Free Speech Project. “Twitter Blocks Content in Turkey Prior to Presidential Election.” Tracker Entries, Georgetown University Free Speech Project, 27 July 2023, freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/tracker-entries/twitter-blocks-content-in-turkey‑prior‑to‑presidential‑election/

Modi, India, Twitter, BBC Documentary Censorship
Candour, The Media Today. “Twitter Censors Links to Documentary Criticizing India’s Modi.” Columbia Journalism Review, 26 Jan. 2023, cjr.org/the_media_today/modi_india_twitter_bbc_documentary_censorship.php

Buffalo Shooting, Twitch, Social Media
Edwards, Alexis. “Social Media Companies Vowed to Stop Videos of Terror Attacks. Buffalo Showed They Have More Work to Do.” Time, 16 May 2022, time.com/6177640/buffalo‑shooting‑twitch‑social‑media/

“Meta Is Using Your Photos to Train Its AI. Here’s What You Need to Know”
Block Party. “Meta Is Using Your Photos to Train Its AI. Here’s What You Need to Know.” Block Party Blog, 1 August 2024, blockpartyapp.com/blog/meta‑is‑using‑your‑photos‑to‑train‑its‑ai‑heres‑what‑you‑need‑to‑know/