Pro
In a world increasingly being defined by our online interactions, social media has become a very powerful tool for connection, self-expression, and education. However, this influence isn’t always beneficial, especially when it goes unchecked. From fake news to harmful content, social media platforms need to increase their censorship. Censorship isn’t about silencing opinions, it’s about protecting people and ensuring social media is safe for everyone. Because of this, censorship is good and necessary to create a healthier, more trustworthy digital environment where users, especially the most vulnerable, can engage without fear of being negatively impacted.
One of the biggest dangers of social media is the spread of misinformation. Fake news, whether about politics, health, or world events, can easily mislead millions of people. In 2022, a study by the Pew Research Center found that nearly 50 percent of U.S. adults got their news from social media, but much of it was inaccurate or misleading. For example, during elections, false claims about voter fraud or misleading information about candidates can confuse voters and influence their decisions. For example, during the 2020 U.S. presidential election, false claims about widespread voter fraud, such as the debunked assumption that thousands of votes were cast by deceased individuals, circulated widely on social media, confusing voters and causing distrust in the voting process. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation about vaccines spread rapidly causing many people to distrust lifesaving medical advice. Social media platforms have the ability and the responsibility to remove this type of content before it causes any real-world harm.
The problem doesn’t stop at misinformation. Social media is also filled with harmful content, especially for minors. Many young people are exposed to dangerous content, such as posts glorifying eating disorders, self-harm, or violent challenges. TikTok challenges like the Blackout challenge, Benadryl challenge, and many others have had real-life effects. For example, a 10-year-old girl in Italy died while attempting the Blackout Challenge, a dangerous trend on TikTok that encourages participants to choke themselves until they lose consciousness. According to Italian authorities, the girl had tied a belt around her neck in an attempt to complete the challenge but accidentally killed herself.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, rates of depression and anxiety among teens have risen sharply in recent years, with social media playing a major role in this increase. The CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data Summary & Trends Report shows that in 2023, 40 percent of high school students reported experiencing persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness while 20 percent seriously considered committing suicide. By censoring harmful content, posts promoting self-harm, cyberbullying, or unrealistic beauty standards, platforms can limit the negative influences that worsen mental health.
Social media companies also often profit more from harmful content, making censorship essential to keep big companies in check. Controversial posts tend to generate higher engagement — more likes, comments, and shares—which directly boosts platforms' ad revenue. For instance, Facebook’s internal research in 2021 revealed that divisive content was more likely to be shared because of its ability to spark angry reactions. While a controversial opinion itself isn’t inherently harmful, algorithms amplify extreme or misleading takes that enter dangerous territory, such as hate speech or misinformation.
Some argue that censorship violates free speech, and while that’s an important concern, it’s equally critical to recognize that even freedom of speech has its limits. Social media companies aren’t banning opinions, they’re targeting lies, hate speech, and harmful material that can hurt real people and communities. By harnessing censorship as a tool and not a weapon, social media can become a safe space for all.
Con
In the modern age, social media is the primary platform for social discourse. The effect of social media increasingly bleeds into politics and real-life culture. However, with such power in our lives, these platforms’ ability to regulate speech is a growing source of concern. Moderation — deciding what content is acceptable and what is not — has the potential to threaten free expression in an increasingly alarming way, since it limits free speech, cannot be done fairly, and places too much power in the hands of companies.
The most obvious issue with censoring offensive or unsavory speech is that “offensive speech” is entirely subjective. What is completely reasonable to one person may be appalling to another. Additionally, the mechanical, impersonal internet is a filter through which tone, sarcasm, and intent are easily lost, resulting in constant misinterpretations. America’s highly polarized culture makes the effect worse. In short, “fair” moderation does not exist.
The decision of what to censor usually lies in the hands of small groups within private companies. These groups, which are rarely held accountable for their choices, are able to impose their prejudices on a worldwide audience. In the context of the ongoing conflict in Israel, several prominent companies, including tech giant Meta, have been accused of unevenly applying censorship. Beyond swaying opinions, this creates an environment that increases tensions by stopping conversation on important issues.
Sometimes, the power doesn’t even rest with a group but an individual. Elon Musk, the owner of the social media app X, has wielded his censorship powers to target accounts on both sides of the aisle over the past year. He has used tactics such as the removal of verification badges, revoking of monetization privileges, and reducing the visibility of posts he disagrees with. In the months leading up to the election, left-wing accounts were targeted, and in recent weeks, the accounts of right-wing figures who criticized Musk for his views on immigration faced similar consequences. Media executives like Musk use censorship in entirely arbitrary ways. Their rules are subject to change on a whim. These tools are constantly used in ways that benefit single persons or corporations, not the general public. When a single set of beliefs is all that makes it through the filter of moderation, social media sites that should be open to all beliefs become echo chambers.
Even when moderation is left to algorithms, the outcomes are far from impartial or effective. Automated systems are frequently praised as alternatives to inherently biased human judgment, but they come with their own issues. Users of platforms like TikTok and Instagram frequently report senseless takedowns of innocent posts or the banning of users for no valid reason. Machines cannot understand nuance or context, making them just as or even more unreliable than human moderators.
At the heart of the issue is a fundamental principle: free speech is essential to any democracy. The First Amendment of the American Constitution enshrines this right as something essential to liberty. Historically, every authoritarian regime began with censoring of information and erasing this essential freedom. The moment we limit speech, we take a step in the direction of autocracy.
The solution to these issues lies in government regulations on social media moderation. Companies must be held to strict legal standards of what content can and cannot be regulated, and do so with absolute transparency. If this does not happen, social media will continue to make us increasingly close-minded and hostile to conflicting ideas, as it already has begun to. By taking control out of the hands of tech giants like Meta, X, and TikTok, the U.S. can truly become a society that values freedom, one in which that freedom applies to everyone and everything, not just to those a person agrees with. In practice, this means tolerating controversial or uncomfortable speech in the name of open dialogue. Although may be tough, it will be worth it in order to maintain our right to freedom of speech as a whole. Without this commitment, social media companies risk undermining democratic values and leading the world in the wrong direction.