Does social media support the freedom of speech?

At the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, people talked of how our lives would never be the same. We all hoped that we as a global people would realise the importance of life, health, family, compassion, respect, our interconnectedness and of reflection.

One could have hoped that we as a people would realise that how we engage with social media requires maturity. From threatened army patrols to non-medical recommendations that certain drugs should be taken or avoided all the while ignoring the serious health repercussions that such actions could have - we have heard it all. Many of these sinister notifications were swiftly discredited. But many caused hurt, harm and fear.

Never before have we relied so heavily on social media. During lockdown it provides the news and information that we consume as much as it has been the means by which we communicate with family and friends. It has provided the forum for discussions and has become an intrinsic part of how we do our jobs.

Society can be defined as the totality of social relationships among organised groups of human beings or animals. Society is a living, breathing concept and is constantly evolving. If social media platforms have become part of and influence our family lives, working lives, political views, how we think, educate ourselves and ultimately how we conduct ourselves day-to-day, then surely it is not too much of a leap to state that social media is now an intrinsic aspect of society.

Many may scoff at the suggestion that social media affects our day-to-day lives. To those people I would ask how many of you were influenced to make banana bread, listened to a recommended podcast or participated in a fitness challenge during lockdown? Despite the still crucial public health guidelines, it was social media that brought thousands of protestors to the streets of our capital on Monday for the BLM movement. These are just some of the physical manifestations of how social media influences us. These are the obvious influences.

Bias covertly influences our behaviour unbeknownst to us. What if social media also silently influences us in a similar way?

Spurred by alleged truths over the past few weeks, we saw videos of people fighting over toilet roll and elderly people searching barren supermarket shelves. Undeniably social media silently fed the fear that led to many acting in ways that caused harm.

Thus, the overt and more subtle influences of social media are affecting our social interactions.

Traditionally, laws have been a necessary means to govern our social interactions supported by institutions and enforced by the police and courts. Social media is a relatively new phenomenon. Historically, law can sometimes be slow to adapt. In light of what we have experienced during this pandemic we must ask do our laws suffice for online matters?

Many I believe would agree that social interactions require policing to ensure the effective functioning of society and ultimately the protection of us all. Should social media interactions be any different? How far must such interactions go before our Laws can intervene?

The governance of online interactions is often shied away from often under the guise of the protection of free speech. Freedom of speech is fundamental. But does social media genuinely support the freedom of speech?

Often on Instagram we see influencers post their opinions on certain issues. These issues are increasingly of the Trump-style short words all-encompassing kind. Take "Change", "Make America great again" or "Get Brexit done" as some examples. Usually within minutes we see the same influencer reposting a follower's comment which appears to express a contrary view. Such reposts are inevitably accompanied by a subtle #instantlyblocked. These posts invariably instigate a frenzy whereby other followers bandwagon in quelling what appears to be a contrary opinion.

Is that really free speech? Yes everyone has the platform to say what they want. But statements, particularly words mean different things to different people. Instead of discussion, debates or attempts to understand other viewpoints to create reasoned, informed, rounded opinions which at least attempt to reach understanding, social media platforms favour divisive knee-jerk reactions. When attack is favoured over discussion our argument proclaiming the advancement of free speech is self-defeating.

Rather than creating an Orwellian fear-inducing system, I do believe that laws, enforcement and policing could improve the online/social media aspect of society for us all. It will not be easy. Our novel approach will require creativity, trust and a lot of work but it is hoped that our governments in light of what we have experienced during this pandemic will realise that to actively discuss online regulation is imperative.

Hopefully our first-hand experiences of the proliferated falsehoods which were blatantly discredited during the pandemic will cause us to exercise maturity online so as to prevent harm, hurt and fear. One can hope that we have learned to reflect and care for others during this time and that this might impact on how we treat others online. It might rid some of the insincere sincerity. It might cause us to think of what our aim is when we post or react - is it to stamp out debate, to cause or risk causing hurt, or is it to do good?