Online conspiracy theories are now inspiring real world violence. Since 2018, supporters of the grotesque QAnon conspiracy theory (which originated in the US but has adherents across Europe) have been linked to kidnappings, car chases, and even a murder. The FBI has gone so far as to label the movement a domestic terror threat.
In October 2020, Facebook banned QAnon-linked accounts from its platforms. Similar crackdowns have been enacted by YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit. Is this the right approach? Should conspiracy theories that inspire violent acts be banned from all social media platforms?
What do our readers think? We had a comment come in from Civis, who says: “Freedom of speech goes with responsibility. And I don’t see any responsibility in people publishing conspiracy theories online or anti-semitic content for example. There should be some reasonable limits to free speech, especially when it contains an appeal to violence against others.”
To get a response, we spoke to Dr. Daniel Jolley, who studies the psychological consequences of conspiracy theories at Northumbria University. What should be done to stop conspiracy theories circulating on social media platforms?
For another perspective, we also spoke to Professor Michael Butter from the University of Tübingen. As the project leader of “Populism and Conspiracy Theory (PACT)” his research focuses on the importance of conspiracy theories for populist movements. What would he say?
The best thing to do about conspiracy theories is not to look at the symptoms, but rather at the causes. People who feel powerless can be better involved in political decision-making processes but, above all, you can invest heavily in education. You have to teach people how society and politics work.
Conspiracy theories always misjudge what happens by chance and what happens through structural relationships. At least in the German educational landscape, a lot is happening right now, and people are thinking about including the topic in curricula.
I am very skeptical about banning things. There are, of course, very clear cases – anti-Semitic hate speech or calls to violence are already banned in many countries. Such posts should be deleted. But there is always an area where this is not so clear. In this grey area, where people often have different opinions and interpretations, it can get hairy; then the question of freedom of expression comes up, which is a very important value. Therefore, I am more of the opinion with such posts that they should be left online. Especially if the decision is made by large American companies, otherwise you will end up doing more harm than good. Freedom of expression must – as far as possible – be preserved.
However, nobody has a right to freedom of dissemination, and one’s own opinion does not have to be amplified by algorithms on social media. So, it is better if YouTube no longer automatically links to conspiracy videos and the other platforms use warning notices.
Should conspiracy theories be banned on social media? Would you ban conspiracy theories such as QAnon? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions?
133 comments Post a commentcomment
extremism should not be differentiated by the political and/or religious framework it uses to build upon. You want to stop islam extremists, fine, but then apply the same rules for christian extremists. You want to stop far-right radicals, ok, but then apply the same rules for the far left. This is how laws should work, everything else is hypocrisy. All that however has nothing to do with digital platforms- they are operated for-profit from private entities and are free to apply whatever filters they find fit, to fulfil their financial goals. Given that the question is invalid, since it implies some moral/legal problem that comes along with the bans- and that is not relevant to the mode of operation(legal, moral or fiscal) of the social networks.
Today’s conspiracy theory is tomorrow’s reality. Just remember back to the war on, Iraq and, all the faked dossiers and truing to pressurise the un into voting for war. That was apparently a conspiracy theory until a British intelligence officer from gchq spilled to the press
the conspiracy theory was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction…
Nope. Bs is the price we pay for the free market of ideas. And it is absolutely worth it.
We must debunk their ideas and show how stupid they are. Not feed their persecution complex and hide the conversation from the open daylight. Then is becomes more dangerous.
problem is when ideas are weaponised
They don’t actually care about being proven wrong, just the opportunity to keep spreading misinformation and disrupt real-world politics while they’re at it.
It’s all about the clicks.
No. Tech giants are a problem. Big corporations are killing freedom. They control the money of the world and the rest of the population earns less and less. This is the dictatorship of the big corporations and is based in a Comunism
Hahaha how is CAPITALISM and CORPORATISM “based on communism”.
Lol wtf…
No. That would be censorship. Stupid people have the right to be stupid.
They can keep their stupidity to themselves. Conspiracy theories are harmful to society and destabilize countries and even cost lives
Who are tech giants to thought-police people? This is not compatible with the freedom of speech and political pluralism our liberal-democracies are supposedly based on. One should distinguish between conspiracy theories – even inane ones – and inciting domestic violence (which of course should be banned).
“inciting domestic violence (which of course should be banned)”
shouldn’t relevant government agencies deal with these as well, instead of tech giants themselves?
Jeffrey Epstein’s island was also a conspiracy theory. Each One is free to think, believe in what we want and express what we want. Mental control and information control are things that you only find in China, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela.
Question irrelevant !
Who decides what is a conspiration theory? In democracy, all opinions should be allowed, otherwise it is not a democracy. Up to the governments to convince people not to believe to such a theories
don’t give them ideas to think, they will make laws accordingly
No! I absolutely love the FlatEarth belivers! They are delicious!
These are the comedians on the internet because you can laugh your head off every day at the concentration of stupidity.
Until they burn cell phone towers and attack doctors….
In my opinion conspiracy theories should not be banned. They just need a mandatory disclaimer to state: “based on the following information, which is referenced, this is my personal opinion.’ People will always question, challenge and then believe what they want. I have at least 10 different social media platforms and one search engine to find all banned, or algorithm hidden videos and information. Responsible disclaimers is the way to go. Plus critical thinking skills need to be taught in schools. In this digital age it is necessary. Media agencies will need to become unbiased again with transparency, honesty and ugly truths or nobody will be interested in what they have to say and conspiracy theories will take over. Media agencies cannot hide or skew the truth any longer because their journalistic bad practices are creating a conspiracy monster.
Not if you believe in Freedom of Speech.
No that’s even a stupid thing to ask. It’s like should another opinion should be silenced. Are we living in Communism seriously debate Europe your questions often sounds like coming from China not Europe.
Should the journalists be banned of manipulating people in social media?
Definitely a BIG NO! Freedom of thought, speech and expression are way more important. We do not need protection, we are grown ups!!!
Well Facebook already use censorship so no wonder Debate Europe is only showing what is yet to come completelly
Facebook is censoring whatever it doesn’t like privately. It is not commanded by any law to censor people. Another platform is free not to censor and we are free to choose media.
Except there is not alternative to FB. It is a monopoly.
You are NOT REALLY “free”.
Who decides what’s a conspiracy theory, and what criteria do they use?
There is no cure for dumbness.
Now this one is an utterly stupid question. No offense. So let’s just imagine for a second, how you define a “conspiracy” theory and how you distinguish it from any other theory? Would it be considered a conspiracy theory to say disagree with religious dogmas too? One may argue that saying “god does not exist” is a conspiracy theory. Or one may say the opposite 😀 If you (I mean anyone who proposed this ridiculous idea) want to increase control over what people may say or think, hence make a step toward even less freedom of speech – go for it!
Conspiracy is totally the wrong name anyhow, if you take the actual meaning of conspiracy.
No. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to have ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Любомир Иванчев sorry. Banning these guys is not against freedom of speech. They can say the bs they say. They just dont have a platform for do it.
Banning any speech you don’t like or agree with only for the reason that you don’t like it or agree with it is the very definition of “free speech violation”. Another word for it is “censorship”.
Любомир Иванчев Yes, and i will get fired if i called all my coworkers cunts the whole day even though the law says i should be able to.,
Jelle Groen Insults and threats are obviously not the same kind of speech as having a conspiracy theory. Please keep to the topic.
Любомир Иванчев implying people are secretely drinking baby blood is definitely much worse than calling someone a cunt.
Jelle Groen That’s just your opinion, not a fact. Accusing someone personally might be worse, but implying there is a secret organization of unidentified people who are doing it is not the same as smearing someone’s name by spreading lies and accusations about them. And such lies and accusations can be argued in court. Still, the person making them is free to do so in the first place.
Любомир Иванчев You come up with a distinction between personal attacks and believing (and outing them) conspiracy theories, and i think we both just agreed that the difference between them can be hard to discern, and heavily influenced by opinion. So it’s best to keep the system we have in place.Free speech just protects you from the government persecuting you from having different ideas, but baselesly throwing around that the elite secretely drink baby blood is also just defamation, which is a crime.
Jelle Groen Learn what defamation means. It’s defamation if you claim a specific person or persons are doing it, making general claims about non-specific people cannot be considered defamation.And no, the right to free speech is a universal human right, and it doesnt’t include protection only from government oppression, but from any organization that would infringe on it. For example, your boss doesn’t have the right to fire you just because you don’t agree with him about something. This would be infringement of your human and civic rights by your employer. It is illegal.
Любомир Иванчев You just admitted yourself, 4 comments above that there is a difference between insults and threats and consipracy theories, but i don’t think you will be able to tell the difference in a lot of cases, so obviously also for you free speech has limits, and i say, we can limit it more and it will be better.
even though i really dislike the idea of a large platform like facebook deciding this for themselves.
Jelle Groen I’ve never claimed that free speech is limitless, of course it has limits. The limits are threats, insults and defamation, as you pointed out already. Unless a conspiracy theory includes any of those, there is no reason whatsoever to censor it. That would be violation of free speech.
“are NOW inspiring violence”?! Where have you folks been?
Who decides whsts conspiracy what’s real ??
Rajesh Kalra nobody, evidence does.
Rajesh Kalra Ministry of truth, obviously.
Leopold Rotim like back to Soviet Union…
Leopold Rotim grownups.
Since our ideology is only true one, it’s obvious we need to censor other ideologies. Why let conspiracy theorists to confuse people? We need to grow up.
Should we even be asking what words should be banned?
The dangers of banning speech (especially political speech) should be so obvious that I am suspicious of anyone who raises the issue. Speech-banners have killed far more people than any conspiracy theory peddlers have.
Well, ridiculous individuals make humankind a spiritually richer or poorer species. These makes humankind different from the other species. Though I am not agreeing with 99,99%of the speculations and conspiracies running around the world, I consider that these make us and keep us a typical free human being. I think that when speculation and conspiracies will be banned or regulated by the law, a new form of slavery (maybe the worse than the ones we have already seen) will start in the history of humankind.So in summary: being ridiculous and having ridiculous speculations is the right of each individual as well as the responsibility of each individual is to inform themself and keep rational and not giving each speculation a free ride. That is my point of view.Being a free human and having the right to speak freely your own opinion are basic human rights. (Maybe society shall help and feed these poor irrational speculators and conspiracy makers, or -even better help them feed themselves, for example help them become famous SF writers or movie makers….And then: who will decide about what is conspiracy and what is not?….What about “selective listening” and healthy laughing???? The other species do not have these gifts! Learn to be a gifted specie and also learn to live with your gift instead of regulating something that naturally come with the existence of each human individual: FREEDOM!
Whatever name you give it, censorship is always censorship and the opposite of freedom of though and speech. Remember Germany in the late 30’s with people burning books in public and expelling professors from universities? Well, banning things and persons on social media is quite the same thing. Make people accountable if they insult and harass others or commit a crime, but don’t ban people’s thoughts and ideas
Miguel Cruz if to put it in law language – suppress freedom of thought and speech , and put the censure on . It’s violation of IHRC . Or all countries resigns the convention?Germany faced nazis, my and other countries also – Soviet Union communism dictatorship… history not far gone to know what it means
Please, we need to update the Democracy.
Ban religion as well. Religion is longest conspiracy theory and far more deadliest
Tomislav Miketic Wow… How democratic!!!Anyway, my freedom of expression stands for total freedom of expression, meaning that even “anti-democratic” supporters should be free to say this kind of garbage.
The most dangerous for the public order yes.
Banning conspiracy theories is giving control over what is a conspiracy and what is not to those, who are most accused of conspiracies. If any of them are even half true, that might be not the best idea.It is a bigger problem that many people base their mindset on very polarized beliefs instead of constant analysis.
Gabor Molnar Exactly.
Gabor Molnar what are you on about? Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories, no debate about it. I am not saying we should ban them but they are called conspiracy theories for a reason. I agree with the second paragraph though, lack of critical thought and analysis are the biggest problems
Antonis Vlachodimos Please give me the unambiguous legal definition of a conspiracy theory that will work in all situations regardless of any potential biased interpretation of any circumstances that may possibly be involved to tell a conspiracy theory (e.g. a possible lie or manipulation from the perspective of one side) from a potentially valid accusation. I might be limited in my understanding, but without actual research work in each separate case I believe it is impossible. Even knowing every possible detail may come with some human bias…
Gabor Molnar what you are saying is too philosophical, I understand what you’re saying. However, blatant lies that get circulated as truths (the earth is flat, we didn’t go the moon, the election in USA was staged etc.) are easy to be dismissed and defined as conspiracy theories. Banning them completely is another discussion on which I can’t really tell what’s right or wrong.
Antonis Vlachodimos To avoid further lies you either need a 100% way to tell the lie from truth and I don’t think you (or anyone else have it, or even if such a thing is possible) have it and would not be trusted by anyone, especially not by those ho have doubts about the authorities making decisions, or otherwise you are simply introducing another way to dictate what is right or wrong. Until any authority has the right to deem evidence as not legal (just because there is a big difference between evidence and legal evidence) just because it was collected in a “non legal way”, which may mean anything depending on the interpretation of the same authorities. This is nothing to do with philosophy, this is cold logic. What is philosophy however is the definition of truth vs a lie. There are obvious (blatant lies, that we can tell easily are) lies, but as you said, banning them based on some set of parameters is really not clear, and that I believe answers the original question raised in the topic. I don’t even decide what is right or wrong, but I would not accept others deciding for me what is right or wrong either.
If Jefferson Davis wasn’t allowed to publish his revisionist memoirs after the US civil war and introduce the Lost Cause myth, the American south for the next 100 years would have been very different. So would post war Germany without Artikel 21 in the GG
A little Shame!?Have any of the world leaders and social medias to heard or read of such “conspiracy theories” as shame and any Human Dignity ?Human Rights for example?
What is conspiracy for you ?the other opinion or way of thinking ? Someone could say ,that thinking is a matter of worry to some people…and if more people instead of following,think first what they follow ,many will stay without followers..Open the jails and free the journalists first instead!
The new form of censorship. Everything that doesn’t fit your narrative – conspiracy theory. We are already brainwashed and demoralised if you really ask this question…
YES
Yes. Internet censors are not enough. I think we need EU level ministry of truth to censor, not just conspiracy theories, but hate speech also. And not just on the internet.
I KNEW IT! THE ILLUMInATI ARE TRYING TO SILENCE US! FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM!
Leopold Rotim You are insane.
Reminder: please mark sarcastic comments with “/s”
THiS iS NOT SARCASM!!!WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!
Social media should be regulated!
I think I am with prof Michael Butter on this, usually when things are banned they go underground and circulate anyway. It depends on the level of harm that it can cause, ancient aliens for example doesn’t cause much harm and is a great source stories for potential sci fi writers. Covid as a hoax type of belief certainly causes harm and deaths indirectly, but I think we do need understand the causes (anxiety/powerlessness) coupled with an easy transmittable platform (social media) and also the sense of omnipotence that goes with moving this stuff around, these people become somebody so there are a lot of variables interacting that need to be taken account of before using the ‘ban’ sledgehammer.
No
More censorship, that’s always the answer. The people are fighting back. Quick strip them of the few freedoms they have.
different opinions is the base of democracy also a conspiracy theory is something that is not yet proved to be truth but this does not make it false either so if you want communism you can go and live to china different opinions should remain free if you are so stupid to believe something is not truth then YOU should be banned from society internet and social media is a free place and must remain free any ban of people with different opinions is fascist practice
To ban any kind of opinion, you need another ones opinion to do it. That is Fascism by definition. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if that might be complete non sense to someone else. Since every human supposedly possesses logic, then it will be his choice to believe or not someones opinion. Banning opinions is essentially banning thought. Orwell said it best, with his concept “Thought police”. So its a big NO.
[PHOTO] https://external.fvno1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQHNwYuBofeLCYiF&w=396&h=396&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia3.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2Fv1.Y2lkPWNhZmU1MmU5Nmd6dDM2ZG91em1odnlnc2M4aWQwYWFnZzB1Nmw2d2YzeTU5OGI2Zg%2FdHVqQWiBBLPbwYeNNU%2Fgiphy.gif&ext=jpg&_nc_cb=1&_nc_hash=AQH03CqNv6L-aYe_
Nope
How do you know a conspiracy theory IS A THEORY before banning it? Who would decide, what is conspiracy and what is not? Every desire to ban something has a filthy intention behind – remember my words.
Censorship is the one of the worst things you can do. Unless you are in favor of a totalitarian / fascist / communist regime, censorship should not be a solution even when those you want to censor are wrong.
There is a reason great minds of the past said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. And a modern author said: “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say”.
Applying this principle to our current case: Banning conspiracy theories is giving control over what is a conspiracy and what is not, to those, who are most accused of conspiracies. If any of them are even half true, that might be not the best idea. It is a bigger problem that many people base their mindset on very polarized beliefs instead of constant analysis.
Today, everything that you don’t like can be regarded as a “conspiracy theory”, I would rather have flat earthers allowed to speak their mind if it means that in the long term we will create a freer and safer society.
But what about those you disagree with? A lot of people have forgot that this is the very point of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech for those you disagree with, and for those that the people in power disagree with. Regardless of what those opinions are, even if they are conspiracy theories. The very point is that they are allowed to say them.
Just as a conspiracy theory can be dismissed as a conspiracy theory an censored. It is equally likely that a true theory can be dismissed as a conspiracy theory an censored. Even the round earth theory used to be a conspiracy theory back in the days. It is naive to think we know everything and can never be wrong, we need different opinions to double check ourselves as a society.
Censorship is the enemy of freedom and democracy.
I think I’ll sart a new one. Who wants to be ‘Y’. I am Y.
No. Anyway it would do nothing to prevent mobs of idiots from forming. The real problem is the number of idiots.
Miguel Cruz if to put it in law language – suppress freedom of thought and speech , and put the censure on . It’s violation of IHRC . Or all countries resigns the convention?
Germany faced nazis, my and other countries also – Soviet Union communism dictatorship… history not far gone to know what it means
Gabor Molnar Exactly.
Gabor Molnar what are you on about? Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories, no debate about it. I am not saying we should ban them but they are called conspiracy theories for a reason. I agree with the second paragraph though, lack of critical thought and analysis are the biggest problems
Antonis Vlachodimos Please give me the unambiguous legal definition of a conspiracy theory that will work in all situations regardless of any potential biased interpretation of any circumstances that may possibly be involved to tell a conspiracy theory (e.g. a possible lie or manipulation from the perspective of one side) from a potentially valid accusation. I might be limited in my understanding, but without actual research work in each separate case I believe it is impossible. Even knowing every possible detail may come with some human bias…
Ministry of truth, obviousl
Rajesh Kalra nobody, evidence does.
Leopold Rotim like back to Soviet Union…
Leopold Rotim grownups.
Since our ideology is only true one, it’s obvious we need to censor other ideologies. Why let conspiracy theorists to confuse people? We need to grow up
Soros-funded fact-checkers, mass media and Hollywood decide what’s real
Любомир Иванчев sorry. Banning these guys is not against freedom of speech. They can say the bs they say. They just dont have a platform for do it.
Banning any speech you don’t like or agree with only for the reason that you don’t like it or agree with it is the very definition of “free speech violation”. Another word for it is “censorship”.
Любомир Иванчев Yes, and i will get fired if i called all my coworkers cunts the whole day even though the law says i should be able to.,
Jelle Groen Insults and threats are obviously not the same kind of speech as having a conspiracy theory. Please keep to the topic.
Любомир Иванчев implying people are secretely drinking baby blood is definitely much worse than calling someone a cunt.
Jelle Groen That’s just your opinion, not a fact. Accusing someone personally might be worse, but implying there is a secret organization of unidentified people who are doing it is not the same as smearing someone’s name by spreading lies and accusations about them. And such lies and accusations can be argued in court. Still, the person making them is free to do so in the first place.
Любомир Иванчев You come up with a distinction between personal attacks and believing (and outing them) conspiracy theories, and i think we both just agreed that the difference between them can be hard to discern, and heavily influenced by opinion. So it’s best to keep the system we have in place.
Free speech just protects you from the government persecuting you from having different ideas, but baselesly throwing around that the elite secretely drink baby blood is also just defamation, which is a crime.
Jelle Groen Learn what defamation means. It’s defamation if you claim a specific person or persons are doing it, making general claims about non-specific people cannot be considered defamation.
And no, the right to free speech is a universal human right, and it doesnt’t include protection only from government oppression, but from any organization that would infringe on it. For example, your boss doesn’t have the right to fire you just because you don’t agree with him about something. This would be infringement of your human and civic rights by your employer. It is illegal.
Любомир Иванчев You just admitted yourself, 4 comments above that there is a difference between insults and threats and consipracy theories, but i don’t think you will be able to tell the difference in a lot of cases, so obviously also for you free speech has limits, and i say, we can limit it more and it will be better.
even though i really dislike the idea of a large platform like facebook deciding this for themselves.
Jelle Groen I’ve never claimed that free speech is limitless, of course it has limits. The limits are threats, insults and defamation, as you pointed out already. Unless a conspiracy theory includes any of those, there is no reason whatsoever to censor it. That would be violation of free speech.
Maybe we should force them to wear symbols on their jacket all the time?? Too on the nose? I need to explain to you why this article is flaming garbage? Is a very slippery slope to give the authority to silence your opinion.Who decide what is “conspiracy theory”? Is investigative journalism conspiracy theory?Speech is not violence.Call to action is condemned. Opinions fall under freedom of speech even dum and offensive opinion.If you decide who gets to speak and why you are not supporting representative democracy and freedom of speech.
Exactly like socialism works
Facebook needs to be shut down, people constantly share fake news that fuels this violence. Mark Zuckerberg is an accomplice of the insurrection at the US capital. Right now Facebook is a threat to US security. It is a hotbed for conspiracy theorists.
Democracy doesn’t thrive when dissent or debate (however unpalatable or ridiculous) is suppressed.
Yes
Opinions can not be based solely on emotions and hunches. Tendentious misinformations are elements that are to be banned from social media. It is the fuel that feeds conspiracy theories.
Robert Grubišić and how do you propose to identify them beyond error? Where do you draw the line? This is a very slippery slope for information control, and quite a common trait for one of the most dangerous traits of fascism.
Diogo Castro i agree it’s a slippery slope. I fear there aren’t any good solutions to this problem, only lesser bad. Maybe the solution is not to censor anything and wait till the situation spirals towards massive social conflicts.
Robert Grubišić Or.. or, have decent political infrastructure with good information and culture backgrounds, unlike USA where everything is completely biased beyond belief. It wasn’t the conspiracy theorists who caused the shitshow of the last 10 years in USA, it was the increasing tension caused by the unrelentless propaganda pingpong USA has going on. You think Trump is the laughing stock of the USA? The politically motivated population control that happens so easily is. For instance, I’d pretty much attribute this capitol pepega madness to a pushback from the ridiculous tension-rising tendency of CNN’s propaganda for 5 years straight and the pathetic riots that recieved little to no atttention from them. Trump literally only had to flip a switch to do the exact same thing. Conspiracy theories are born from distrust, and distrust is born from 3 special ingredients: lack of cultural background (common values), ignorant people (you can’t avoid this one, it’s a constant in every country), and crappy mainstream media like Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc. Of course it’s just an opinion and subjected to change, but those 3 ingredients have been a constant cocktail party for USA.
Ofc, ignorance is the basic ingredient. Lousy mainstream media is the spice.
Who will be the judge? There is no feeling of justice that is why conspiracy theories pop up
Of course not. We want to be free
Yes
No.
Debating Europe This debate is not really an actual debate, since it has been generally accepted that banning and/or controlling information is borderline Fascism, and one of the most dangerous traits of it at that. I smell “tolerant left” authoritarian radicalism all over this issue.
Banning a conspiracy theory on social media that is privately owned is not “fascism“ – because it’s not a government policy, it’s a business policy to determine what they allow on their site. It’s not curtailing freedom of speech because no one has a human/civil right to use social media. There is a right to communicate, but there isn’t a right to all forms of communication. Unless you work for a news organisation, none of us generally can put our individual views on CNN or BBC. Beyond that, no one has a right to spread falsehoods and generally, no one has a right to incite violence. Social Media – generally is considered to be Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, etc. These are all private companies. Generally, private companies can ban anything they want within their organisation. If those private companies want to ban what they consider to be conspiracy theories, rightly or wrongly morally, it’s within their legal rights as a private business to do so. Twitter has already deleted Twitter posts from Trump and banned him for a limited time until he deletes certain tweets. Facebook has removed a video that he circulated. YouTube has been trying to delete Qanon videos. Though, none of the above is what the question is asking – it is asking, should conspiracy theories be banned on social media? If social media was publicly owned, the answer to this might not be the same – but that’s a hypothetical discussion for another time. Because they are private companies, fortunately or unfortunately, within the capitalist system we have, they are free to ban whatever they consider to be conspiracy theories since they control the website and should be able to moderate those websites as they see fit. Arguably, privately owned social media sites should most definitely ban falsehoods and any incitements of violence. It wouldn’t be a question of freedom of speech, so much as a moral duty to ensure that they are not culpable for distributing falsehoods. Social media companies need to take more responsibility for what they allow to have posted on their site, because the public uses it. Allowing anyone to state the earth is flat or that no one got to the moon, means those sites are perpetuating lies. In answer to those saying, “how can we tell what the truth is?” Objective truth exists and human beings are capable of knowing that objective truth. Thorough and carefully done research that considers statistics and science over time is how we understand the truth. Yes, there is concern if it is tainted by profit, but if something has none or little evidence, it probably doesn’t exist. There is no evidence to support Qanon or that the US Election was rigged. Also, if we devolve into distrusting academics, scholars, scientists, and trained journalists, of course we would believe anything, but those people have epistemic authority, meaning they have a moral duty to tell us the truth, but also, they are the ones with first hand knowledge of the truth. In conclusion – businesses, are allowed to do what they want as far as banning content, more people need to trust those with epistemic authority, and truth is objective.
And who defines exactly what is a “conspiracy theory”? Why banned? Is it the new “burning books”?
Censorship is the one of the worst things you can do. Unless you are in favor of a totalitarian regime, censorship should not be a solution even when those you want to censor are wrong.
There is a reason great minds of the past said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. And a modern author said: “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say”.
Censorship is the enemy of freedom and democracy.
You treat ignorance with information and education. Banning is a band aid that will create further issues down the line. Sadly, it takes time and investment to those who have been left behind. Only people who are desperate can follow for that crap
I think we should get rid of social media. Would solve a lot of problems.
And … Who will determine that a theory is a “conspiracy” one ?
Firstly, the meaning of conspiracy theory is: <> Firstly, I find this term is incorrectly applied to people with high reasoning skills, critical thinking skills, people with valid questions, people with valid concerns, people with valid insights into financial or other motivations, unbiased opinions from experts in the field and challengers of inconsistencies. This group of people do not believe that there is ‘secret plot by usually powerful conspirators’. When you lump everyone in to shut down people who disagree for ABC reasons it is called censorship. Genuine conspiracy theorists who believe that circumstances are the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators have been around forever. I think correct labelling needs to be created. For example, Genuine conspiracy theorists need to highlight that it is their personal opinion based on information they have gathered and not an absolute fact. Kind of like an honest disclaimer. Even though FB fact-checkers are laughed at as they cherry pick the points they are fact-checking on FB, a similar unbiased independent kind might be a good idea. Rather than censor the information, they could explain what is fact, what is opinion and people can judge for themselves. I read the fact-checker info, i read the article and I decide for myself. Freedom of thought, tempered with repsonsibility needs to be taught in schools with critical thinking skills. Forget the older generations.
The term ” Conspiracy Theorist “was used by the CIA in the1960s if im not mistaken for those who questioned did not agree what the government was doing at the time…
No, freedom off speech. Exception the call for violence and riot
What a dumb debate! Free the speech. Every day I see conspiracy fact backed up by science where the main stream media are bullshit artists and that can be verified. You are delusional if you believe the main media as they have lied to you for decades and this can be backed up by verified fact. However when I present the facts people call it conspiracy but they themselves have no logical argument. When I say take few minutes to read a peer reviewed paper they say I do not have time. Put up or shut up.