Argus Poll: Social Media Censorship
The vast majority of students we surveyed (83%) were worried about social media companies censoring information, and 82% thought alleged “misinformation” should be allowed with a warning label or “context” note. Image: The Midwood Argus / DALL-E 2
By THE ARGUS STAFF
During the past few years, in response to requests from government officials and political leaders, social media companies such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook have banned or blocked posts that allegedly spread "misinformation" about a variety of topics, from Covid-19 to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. While many blocked posts have been proven to be false or misleading, some of the information removed by social media companies later turned out to be true.
People have also been banned on social media for making threats of violence, using abusive language towards vulnerable groups, misgendering trans people, and in the case of former president Donald Trump, “the risk of incitement of violence.”
On October 27, Elon Musk completed a purchase of Twitter, reinstated several banned accounts (including Donald Trump’s), and said that the app would now be more open to free speech – though not without limits. For example, Kanye West was suspended for posting a swastika (the nazi symbol) after making several anti-semitic statements. Musk called the post an "incitement to violence." Twitter staff have also temporarily suspended users for “doxxing” (revealing others’ home addresses or immediate locations).
Musk also added "Birdwatch," a feature that allows Twitter community members to identify tweets they believe are misleading and write notes that provide informative context. On November 6, Musk tweeted, “Twitter needs to become by far the most accurate source of information about the world. That’s our mission.” His critics have expressed their doubts.
In December, we surveyed 250 Midwood students to find out their perspectives on these topics. About 60% of our respondents were female. Ethnically, 38% of our poll-takers were Asian American, 23% were European American, 13% were African American, 10% were Hispanic, 7% were Mixed Race, and the rest identified with other groups or preferred not to say. Here’s what they told us:
How concerned are you about social media companies censoring information?
69% Somewhat concerned
17% Not at all concerned
14% Very concerned
What do you think social media companies should do about posts that government officials say spread “misinformation?”
82% Social media companies should allow these posts, but attach a warning label or “context” note to the posts.
14% Social media companies should block these posts.
5% Social media companies should allow these posts without a warning label or “context" note.
How do you feel about Elon Musk buying Twitter?
66% I have no opinion on it.
21% I think it’s a bad thing.
13% I think it’s a good thing.
What do you think should happen if a social media user makes a threat of violence?
44% They should be banned (kicked off permanently).
40% They should be temporarily suspended.
6% Neither of these.
9% I’m not sure.
What do you think should happen if a social media user uses language that is deemed racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or anti-semitic?
44% They should be temporarily suspended.
41% They should be banned (kicked off permanently).
8% Neither of these.
8% I’m not sure.
What do you think should happen if a social media user intentionally misgenders someone (e.g., intentionally refers to a trans woman as "him").
30% They should be temporarily suspended.
12% They should be banned (kicked off permanently).
36% Neither of these punishments.
22% I’m not sure.
Do you think Donald Trump should be permanently banned from Twitter?
37% Yes
28% No
35% Not sure
Summary:
The vast majority of students (83%) were worried about social media companies censoring information, and 82% thought alleged “misinformation” should be allowed with a warning label or “context” note.
However, nearly all respondents (over 85%) thought users should face consequences for making threats of violence or racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or anti-semitic statements. However, they were about evenly split on whether the punishment should be a temporary suspension or a permanent ban. Overall, students thought a threat of violence warranted more punishment than the use of slurs, but the difference was not large.
Forty-four percent of students would permanently ban a user for making a violent threat, while 40% would instead issue a temporary suspension. Forty-one percent of students would permanently ban a user for making a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or anti-semitic statement, while 44% would limit the punishment to a temporary suspension.
The question of repercussions for intentionally misgendering others got a more mixed response. Thirty percent of students favored a temporary suspension, only 12% sought a permanent ban, 36% thought neither of these punishments was appropriate, and 22% were unsure.
When it came to Donald Trump’s presence on Twitter, students were once again split: 37% thought he should be permanently banned, 28% thought he should be allowed, and 35% were not sure.