Navigating Freedom of Speech with Integrity: The Power and Responsibility of Social Media

By Andrew Lenti, Managing Director at TOPP Tactical Intelligence, London

Introduction

In today's fast-paced world of information sharing, social media stands as a powerful tool for communication. However, along with its power comes a profound responsibility.

As a provider of an operational excellence management platform disruptive in the way it champions transparency and accountability in addressing operational inefficiencies throughout organisations, I find myself captivated by the topic of social media, freedom of speech, and the challenges arising from the rapid dissemination of technology to the general public. This juxtaposition against the lag in regulatory frameworks and legislative measures as the ‘digital global citizen’ navigates online adds a compelling layer to the theme on ensuring its responsible and secure use.

A recent incident I came across on LinkedIn has brought to light once again the impact that careless framing of content can have on public discourse. The incident also prompts a crucial examination of the delicate balance between freedom of speech and ethical responsibility both on behalf of the social media provider and those using the platform.

The Incident

It all began with a video shared last weekend by an individual, accusing a group of protestors of chanting something deeply unsettling. The post gained rapid traction, triggering thousands of interactions marked by anger and hatred. The only issue? The accusation turned out to be false.

The protestors, UCLA students, were passionately chanting against the state of Israel, "We charge you with genocide," a powerful plea in the context of the conflict in Gaza. However, the post framed them as chanting something entirely different: "We want Jewish genocide", two vastly different meanings.

It goes without saying that whatever position you may have on the Israel/Palestine conflict, this will probably make you outraged.

Spending a good portion of my work week in marketing-related activities, I am intrigued how this incident serves as a stark reminder of the influence when framing an argument and its potential to incite strong immediate public emotion which in this case was outrage based on a false premise.

Responsibility of Social Media Platforms

This incident underscores the responsibility of both social media platforms and their users. Platforms like LinkedIn, as custodians of public discourse, must implement measures to ensure that shared content is accurate and does not incite hate.

Moderation policies should be stringent, holding users accountable for misinformation and malicious framing all while respecting the principle of freedom of speech.

How transparent & accountable is your management team?

A Lesson in Listening

A consistent thread in the history of the USA has always been its university students protesting AGAINST war, not FOR it. If the student protesters had actually chanted 'We want Jewish genocide', it would indeed be an unprecedented occurrence. Considering this, it is disheartening to say the least to see so many Americans including the poster himself who quickly believed this fake news to be true with no further investigation into its validity or fact-checking.

In addition to being suspended from LinkedIn for a short period to reflect on his actions, it’s worth noting that the poster might benefit from a new set of hearing aids, perhaps provided by LinkedIn as a gesture of good faith.

In the spirit of turning a negative into a positive, one might suggest that the perpetrator of this reckless post consider a unique form of amends.

For every like and comment garnered by the post, a donation of $1 to a stop-the-war charity could be a fitting gesture along with his public apology to the LinkedIn community. As of the last time that I looked, this would cost him about $2,000. This proposed "gentleman's fine" is not about stifling speech, but rather about acknowledging the impact of words and actions on a larger scale, taking accountability by owning up to one's mistakes and setting an example.

The incident on LinkedIn serves as a crucial reminder that with great power comes great responsibility. Social media platforms and their users must exercise vigilance in sharing content, all while respecting the delicate balance between freedom of speech and ethical responsibility. Let us remember that our words hold weight, and it is our duty to ensure they are wielded with integrity and care.

In the forthcoming years, the exponential growth of technology in disseminating information will likely outstrip our capacity to adapt constitutional and legislative frameworks in real time.

In light of this, the emphasis on ethics and integrity in our interactions becomes paramount. It is equally crucial to recognise that the landscape of freedom of speech has evolved from the days of our forefathers standing on soapboxes rallying their communities.

This incident isn't isolated and will continue to occur until Big tech and government work together to iron out the bottlenecks resulting from the misalignment in technology and the 'constitutional rights' of the digital community.

Since the original post, many have reported it to the 'LinkedIn Police' calling it defamatory thus shining a glimmer of hope in terms of counting on the community to self-police ourselves in moments of chaos. Regardless of this, substantial transformations are imminent and it is in our best interest to approach them constructively, rather than resist them obstinately.

Would you like to quickly become more transparent and have your staff more accountable in record time?

P.S. - If you found this post intriguing, you might also appreciate "Stakeholder capitalism, social media, and the shocking behaviour of the new corporate citizen" shared during the Biden/Trump election. In it, I observed a senior leader at a prominent multinational bank publicly challenge her own company's CEO when he had posted an article about the Trump supporters who stormed Capitol Hill. In her comments on the post, she openly disagreed with him and expressed that she felt he was encroaching on her (and our) freedom of speech.