Intimidation Culture: Free Expression in the Age of Social Media

Abstract

While social media platforms have dramatically bolstered the ability of ordinary people to broadcast their views to large audiences, the dynamics of online communication have also had a stifling effect on public discourse. Due to social media's tendency to reward content that is extreme and divisive, it is often the case that people with more moderate views engage in self- censorship and preference falsification in order to evade online backlash. This project deploys the philosophy of the seminal liberal thinker John Stuart Mill in order to examine the phenomenon of online intimidation culture and assess its pernicious impact on society. Three social goods are identified that are jeopardized when thought and expression become constrained due to formal or informal censorship. These are critical intellectual faculties, authenticity in discourse, and equity in accountability. It is argued that those who are interested in preserving these social goods have strong grounds for resisting the pressures of intimidation culture and working to establish an atmosphere of free expression wherein people from diverse backgrounds can explore and assess a broad array of competing ideas without fear of punishment. It is likewise argued that despite the persistent toxicity of social media discourse, the societal harms that it produces can be mitigated through the cultivation of institutions that are resilient in the face of pressure campaigns, and firmly committed to intellectual diversity and freedom of expression. Finally, it is posited that social media is not inherently at odds with a Millian atmosphere of free expression. If the incentives that animate online discourse are realigned in order to encourage reasoned discourse rather than performative antagonism, then this technology could be an asset to humans' capacity for compassion by facilitating greater communication and understanding between individuals and groups from different parts of the world.