A NOTE OF CAUTION

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States has launched an “Inquiry on Tech Censorship,” seeking to “better understand how technology platforms deny or degrade users’ access to services based on the content of their speech or affiliations.” They have qualified this denial and degrading as “censorship” and “bullying,” and are encouraging users who have been “banned, shadow banned, demonetized, or otherwise censored” to share their comments as part of the Request for Information (RFI) period running from February to May 21st. 

At first glance, you may think ‘Hey! That’s me! I’ve been banned, shadow banned, demonetized and otherwise censored on tech platforms,’ and you wouldn’t be wrong to think that. For artists who have been experiencing threats of account deletion, shadowbanning, violation loops and decreased visibility—this call may seem like what you’ve been waiting for.  But beware, this isn’t all it seems to be, and it wasn’t meant for you. In fact, this inquiry is created with intentions that may well go directly against your own interests. 

In the context of the current presidential administration, the FTC RFI is likely motivated by the  unverified claims that social media companies are suppressing speech that is favored by the current US administration. It is likely a tactic meant to pressure platforms into permitting speech the government agrees with ¹ . This politicized effort to control the content moderation on these platforms is not just bound to create an environment more hostile to diverse  artistic expression, it also endangers the bedrock freedom that keeps our internet – and our speech – free from government co-option. 

In the present political climate, it seems likely that the results of the FTC RFI will be utilized in an attempt to justify government intervention in how social media companies moderate their content, thereby threatening companies’ ideological independence and First Amendment rights.  While we might not always agree with how social media companies structure and implement their content moderation policies, calling for government oversight over media is a worse outcome for a democratic society. Social media companies are protected in their editorial choices, much in the way your local bookstore or newspaper is, and the government telling them what they can or cannot host (barring illegal content) is censorship. 

This can seem to put artists who have experienced censorship online in a complicated position. While DDA speaks out against biased algorithms and guidelines, and badly-applied moderation, it also intentionally directs these critiques to the social media companies themselves, and not the government. Our efforts to advise social media companies, and point out when they are wrong and to encourage them to center artistic freedom and human rights, are worthy and impactful – and they also preserve the right of free expression that we all enjoy². Rather than embolden a questionable government effort to jawbone social media companies into adopting different content moderation policies, DDA encourages artists who are dissatisfied with existing content moderation policies to advocate for the preservation of artistic freedom online.

With those caveats, some of you may still be interested in sharing your own experience of censorship; and since the government is generally expected to respond to issues raised in the public comments, if you do so it is good to be strategic about what you write. We encourage you -- if you decide to weigh in -- to use your comment to make plain that you do not support the government takeover of website's content moderation decisions. For those interested in sending a comment through the RFI, DDA has prepared a boilerplate text to incorporate or send as-is.