OPINION - Meta's censorship: Freedom is a 2-way road

The author is a researcher at the World Research Center of national broadcaster TRT, based in Istanbul, Türkiye.

ISTANBUL

Since last Oct. 7, Instagram, a Meta-owned platform, has been systematically flagging and removing posts supporting Palestine, citing violations of community guidelines or simply labeling them as spam. This blatant bias was evident from the onset of the conflict. A December 2023 report by Human Rights Watch shed light on the troubling algorithmic selectivity of Instagram and Facebook, raising serious concerns about freedom of expression in the context of the war in Gaza. The report laid bare the pervasive algorithmic censorship affecting the sharing, liking, and commenting on pro-Palestinian content. Moreover, prominent social media and digital human rights activist Shaun King, with nearly 6 million followers, saw his Instagram account shut down after his posts about Gaza. This systemic suppression of users voicing rightful outrage against the human rights abuses resulting from Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza is a stark example of corporate authoritarianism wielded through algorithmic control.

Corporate social media and the state

Today's outcry over Instagram's decision centers on the perceived curtailing of social media, a space championed for freedom of expression. However, it is essential to recognize that the algorithmic authoritarianism controlling content, themes, principles, and norms is itself the actual source of these criticized restrictions. Those who defend social media platforms as arenas of free speech under corporate agendas must grasp the complex relationship between these platforms and sovereign states. Corporate-owned social media platforms have emerged as vital channels for users to amplify their voices to a global audience. However, the true measure of freedom on these platforms is exposed when corporate interests and values come into conflict with the expressions of their users. It is in these moments of discord that the platforms reveal their real stance on freedom of speech. Governments, for their part, are not mere bystanders in this equation. They act as custodians of the delicate balance between free expression and sensitivity, carefully monitoring and intervening when necessary to ensure that this balance is preserved. In managing this balance, both corporations and states play crucial roles in shaping the landscape of algorithms and freedom of expression.

Take, for example, the bipartisan consensus on banning TikTok, owned by China’s ByteDance, in the United States. Earlier this year the US Congress passed legislation saying TikTok would be banned within a year unless it is sold to another company, citing cybersecurity and data protection threats posed by China. Those advocating for sensitivity to national security concerns in the US-China power struggle should apply the same fair-minded approach when evaluating Instagram's decision on freedom of expression.

If a platform inherently biases its approach to free speech based on preset limits, the fundamental issue lies with the platform itself. Social media platforms wield the power to generate global awareness of egregious human rights violations, such as those occurring in Gaza. When these platforms enforce algorithmic censorship on such content, it reveals a deeper, principled problem. This is not merely about stifling speech; it is about the guiding principles of these platforms and their role in the broader discourse on human rights and freedom.

Understanding Instagram’s recent decision demands a principled perspective. Amid the global surge of awareness and empathy for Gaza, we must ask: Can a social media platform that legitimizes discriminatory selectivity truly serve as a bastion of free expression? When a platform enforces its boundaries through censorship and restrictions, it fundamentally undermines the very essence of open dialogue. To genuinely uphold the values of free expression, Instagram must move beyond superficial gestures and commit to a stance that is transparent, unbiased, and inclusive. Only by embracing such principles can it aspire to be a true champion of the freedoms it professes to support.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu