26 Sep 2014
When a video of freelance photojournalist James Foley being beheaded by members of ISIS was released online, social media sites, like Twitter and YouTube, worked to remove the images and videos linked on their sites. Twitter representatives state that they removed the imagery on the request of Foley’s family, as per their current policies. This is a fair request from the family, but as journalist Mathew Ingram points out: “… as well-meaning as their [Twitter & Youtube] behavior might be, do we really want those platforms to be the ones deciding what content we can see or not see?”
If Twitter is intended to ever successfully play the role of the networked public sphere, how can it succeed if it censors the content on its site? While the video of Foley’s beheading may be considered too gory and obscene to view by some, forcing its censorship eliminates the freedom of speech needed to facilitate the public sphere.
That said, Twitter has every right to remove the content from their site; they have never made any claim that they are, or strive to be, a networked form of Habermas’s public sphere. They removed the content to fulfill the request of a grieving family, an act I would greatly appreciate if I were in a similar situation regarding a loved one. Supporters of Twitter’s decision argue that sharing and viewing the video only supports the actions of ISIS, and that ignoring the video completely is the only way to battle such an atrocity.
In order to create a successful public sphere, sites like Twitter need to allow open discourse amongst users, but with situations like the Foley video, they also need to maintain a happy user base to keep their investors content. As noted in the #HamOnt study, Nancy Fraser points out that “the media that constitute the material support for the circulation of views are privately owned and operated for profit.” While Fraser’s argument discusses today’s digital divide, and subordinated social groups’ inability to access these private forms of media, her statement also eludes to the notion that these same media outlets control the content displayed through their channels.
Unless Twitter is willing to allow any and all content to be posted online via their social network, it can never act as the ideal networked public sphere. This argument, however, assumes that Twitter is making strides towards this goal; the company is more likely just a private institution that provides a channel for discussion of topics relevant to the public sphere.