By Matt Underwood French President Emmanuel Macron has sharply criticized the free speech argument used by social media platforms, labeling it as “pure bullshit.” This strong stance challenges a core tenet often championed by these companies, particularly in the context of discussions around online content moderation and platform responsibility. Macron’s sentiment resonates with a growing concern that the current interpretation of free speech by social media giants is being used to sidestep ethical business practices and the real-world impact of their services.
The issue at hand is not simply about allowing individuals to express themselves, but rather about how the very architecture of these platforms shapes what speech is seen and amplified. When platforms present themselves as neutral conduits for free expression, they often overlook the powerful role their algorithms play in guiding users. Macron’s point that this “free speech” is hollow if users are being steered from one piece of harmful content to another highlights a critical disconnect. The idea of transparency around these algorithms, rather than a blanket defense of free speech, is what Macron seems to be advocating for.
The notion that social media companies are champions of free speech often feels disingenuous when viewed through the lens of their business models. The argument that their algorithms are merely facilitating free speech can be seen as a smokescreen to justify practices that are, at best, questionable and, at worst, actively harmful. When these platforms are controlled by a select few, often billionaires, their claims of defending free speech can feel less like a civil rights stance and more like a justification for unethical profit-seeking. The influence of advertising dollars and the drive for engagement are intrinsically linked to how content is presented, making the idea of truly unfettered “free speech” on these platforms a complex and often illusory concept.
Furthermore, the hypocrisy becomes apparent when these same entities or the individuals who lead them are sometimes implicated in actions that stifle or censor speech they disagree with, even while publicly championing it. The idea of free speech as an absolute shield, especially when wielded by powerful corporations, is challenged by instances where alternative voices are suppressed or marginalized. This creates a perception that the “free speech” defense is selective, applied when it suits their agenda and discarded when it doesn’t.
The debate also touches upon the very definition of free speech in the digital age. Historically, free speech meant protection from government reprisal for expressing dissenting views. It was never intended to guarantee a platform or a guaranteed audience, especially in an era where bots and automated accounts can dominate the discourse. The lines have blurred significantly, and the unique way social media platforms curate and push content means they are not simply public squares but rather highly engineered environments that actively shape user experience and perception.
The concerns extend to the protection of vulnerable populations, particularly minors. The idea that harmful content directed at children, or content that leads to severe psychological distress and even self-harm, could somehow fall under the umbrella of protected free speech is a dangerous misinterpretation. This is akin to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater; the intent and the consequence matter. Social media’s capacity to spread misinformation, propaganda, and conspiracy theories, and to manipulate public opinion for political or financial gain, makes the current “free speech” defense appear deeply flawed.
Instead of outright bans, which are often difficult to enforce and raise privacy concerns, a more constructive approach might involve regulating the monopolies that social media companies represent. Requiring transparency in their algorithms and business practices would be a significant step. The ability to understand how content is amplified, demoted, or even created through algorithmic processes is crucial for a healthy public discourse. It is about ensuring that the public has a clear understanding of the forces shaping their online reality.
The power these platforms wield in shaping discourse and influencing behavior is undeniable. The notion that they are simply passive platforms is no longer tenable. They are active curators, and with that comes a responsibility to the content they promote. The argument that this curated speech is still “free speech” is a semantic trick that overlooks the fundamental power imbalance and the engineered nature of the online experience. It is essential to move beyond simplistic defenses of “free speech” and engage with the complex realities of algorithmic influence and corporate responsibility in the digital public sphere. The call for transparency and regulation is not an attack on free speech, but rather an attempt to ensure that it can exist in a meaningful and healthy way, free from undue manipulation and harmful amplification.