Who Owns the Digital Town Square?

Stock image provided by Unsplash: Birmingham Museums

Earlier this year, platforms such as Facebook and Instagram followed the lead of X and removed their fact-checking programs. Not long after, users discovered they were suddenly following Donald Trump on some of these platforms without their consent. These developments have raised some concerns about political neutrality and transparency in spaces referred to as "modern public squares." 

Defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), modern public squares are implied as social media platforms such as Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok, functioning as the digital equivalents of traditional civic forums. As the Supreme Court continues to hear cases challenging laws regulating social media, we should ask ourselves: Is our speech online "public," or subject to private companies?

Note: In this blog, I continue to refer to the modern public squares as "town squares" simply because I am a traditionalist. Historically, town squares were the heart of a town for civic forums, community life, and marketplaces. 

The Drawbacks of Centralization

These centralized and open access platforms offer expansive reach, at a cost. While we gain more visibility for organizations, causes, and activists and international discourse on common issues, we face increasing drawbacks. Manipulation of the algorithms dictates what we see and when we see it, all without our knowledge or consent. Unless you know you're stuck in an echo-chamber and are okay with it, this is cause for concern. Dictated by private corporations and interests rather than public consensus, misinformation and censorship are frequent. 

The Free Speech Project documents these issues in "The New Public Square?" One report finds that Facebook censored the free speech rights of Palestinian users during a violent conflict with Israel in 2021. The users were banned or shadowbanned for posting politically sensitive content without explanation or appeal. This example shows that platforms aren't hosting conversations and community, they're controlling them. 

A Sprinkle of Manufactured Realities, a Dash of Algorithmic Speech, and a Spoonful of Manipulation

The 2020 Olympics looked far different than years prior, not just for athletes and spectators watching from home but for news outlets that provided coverage of the games as well. 

Due to the coronavirus, restrictions on travel and attendance at the games in Tokyo were heavily affected, but the BBC found a way around that - AI-generated studios. Using Epic's Unreal game engine, the BBC was able to create a fake studio in Tokoyo. 

While this tool helped get around restrictions and create an atmosphere that felt real to viewers, it raises the question: How much of the town square is real anymore? The growing trend of AI recreating spaces reflects an increasing mistrust in realism and transparency in our digital spaces. 

It's not just visual fabrications that are creating mistrust. Language models like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Llama are reshaping how we as humans communicate, debate, and search for information. Undark argues in "ChatGPT isn't Hallucinating. It's Bullshitting," that these models prioritize plausible sounding truth over text (see my last blog). This quality is dangerous when inserted into the public's town square. 

ArsTechnica warns that "ChatGPT is a data privacy nightmare, and we ought to be concerned." The data collected when we use AI systems is used in turn to train those very same systems. If you were a writer and asked ChatGPT to help outline your new book, the output ChatGPT generates is now part of its database even though your work is copyrighted. Not only are these tools influencing our town square, they're harvesting our personal data and dispersing it in the public domain. All without safeguards.

If you're still left unsurprised, Wired shows how researchers were able to manipulate AI to produce prohibited content, highlighting the weaknesses of AI's safety systems. This is particularly concerning as these tools are now being integrated into social networks, media, education, and even politics. 

Can We Trust Privately Owned Companies with Our Speech?

Given the recall of fact-checking programs, algorithm manipulations, and the increase of unchecked AI language models, can we trust tech millionaires like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to govern our town squares? 

My answer to that question is no, we cannot. If anything, their concentrated control over our public spaces limits our civic forums. 

How We Move Forward - Take Back the Town Square

I would argue that we agree to these controls by creating accounts on these various platforms; however, that does not mean we cannot find a balance. 

Personally, I have begun prioritizing conversation over "likes." Last year, I started using platforms like Reddit and Medium. I've found communities to connect with, like Reddit's r/POTS and r/Cooking (they helped me save my turkey last Thanksgiving). As you're reading now, you've seen that I own and control my own website, allowing me to maintain ownership of my own content, blog writings, and data.

I also pursue digital media literacy, and began teaching it to local high school students. Helping youth recognize misinformation, media bias, and digital manipulation is crucial as they are the next generation of creators. 

Together, we can all advocate for laws to catch up to the digital era. Demanding our lawmakers for algorithmic transparency, requirements for AI content, and protecting our data. We need to reclaim our town squares and ask for technology that is accountable, transparent, and fair. Individually, we need to push for a society that is not passive media consumers, but rather active content creators. 

Ultimately, if we do not own our speech, someone else will.