Sir, – Finn McRedmond’s article (March 5th) on the international rise of figures such as Tommy Robinson invoking freedom of speech highlights an important debate. However, the real issue may lie elsewhere.
The question is not whether individuals should be allowed to speak. The question is who controls the systems that amplify and distribute that speech at scale.
Social-media platforms are simply not neutral forums for speech or free speech. They are global amplification systems governed by private firms and controlled by algorithms that determine what millions of people see. In that sense, they function much more closely to broadcast infrastructure than to a traditional open public forum or public square.
In theory, free speech means that everyone can express their views. In practice, however, algorithms amplify some speech while diminishing other voices. Social media becomes a highly curated environment where engagement, not balance, determines what is seen. This means that freedom of speech on these platforms often becomes secondary to freedom of algorithmic amplification. If some speech is stifled while other speech is amplified that is not an open forum or marketplace for the exchange of ideas.
READ MORE
The real issue here may be digital sovereignty.
Historically, societies regulated their information environments through broadcasting laws, media standards, national regulators and cultural norms. Social media has bypassed these structures entirely. Ideas now move across societies like migration across open borders, with little cultural or regulatory filtering. One could describe this as the immigration of ideas without borders. The result is that information systems built in one country can shape political discourse and social values in another.
[ No wonder Tommy Robinson has become a Maga heroOpens in new window ]
We have already seen concerns raised around external influence shaping events such as Brexit and US presidential elections. If platforms decide what people see, then these are not neutral platforms or forums for free speech. They can be used to undermine societies and social values.
Traditional broadcasters operate under public obligations, editorial standards, political balance rules, national oversight and cultural accountability. Social-media platforms currently operate without any equivalent responsibilities, despite having far greater reach.
That would mean recognising them as information infrastructure, not simply technology companies. The debate therefore needs to move beyond freedom of speech versus censorship.
The real question is whether these social-media platforms, through their algorithmic information distribution systems, which shape national discourse, should be regulated more like broadcasters. – Yours, etc,
JOHN O’NEILL,
Whitefriar Street,
Dublin 8.
