Our first source was written by Alice Marwick, an academic and social media researcher with a Ph.D. in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University (Marwick 1). Marwick is a fellow at Data and Society, which adds to her reputation because she was recognized for her applied research and leadership in several corporations. Moreover, Marwick was the director of the McGannon Center, which is “dedicated to furthering understanding of the ethical and social justice dimensions of media and communication technologies” (About Us 1). This demonstrates how Marwick has extensive understanding of free expression in social media. In addition, Marwick was a postdoctoral researcher at Microsoft Research New England in the Social Media Collective, which demonstrates her ability to see because she is exposed to the experimental and interpretative views globally, that comprehend the diplomatic and ethnic dynamics that uphold social media technologies.
In her article, Marwick explains how users of social media abuse free expression. One area she makes evident is that the internet can only be free in ideal conditions. However, “this idealistic version of the internet no longer exists” (Marwick 3). For example, the alt-right continue to be exceptionally successful at utilizing social media sites to conspire, foment, and assemble (Marwick 11). Marwick makes a comparison between social media sites that protect the freedom of speech of alt-right and anti-Semites to the freedom of speech of spammers in the early internet. Spam emails were threatening the existence of emails as a useful tool for communication. However, to resolve this issue, technology corporations and software analysts worked together to filter them out. This relevant analogy strengthens the articles because it illustrates how “internet users recognized that the value of their platforms was rooted in their ability to foster communication” (Marwick 6). Marwick believes that the spam email situation could be applied to hate speech without jeopardizing freedom of speech. Inevitably, “unlimited free speech can lead to aggression and other tactics which end up silencing the speech of minorities” (Marwick 14). Marwick believes that in social media there are bad actors and good actors. Bad actors are those who use platforms to harass and suppress others whilst good actors collaborate and support the internet community. However, the class of structured brigading that current social media allows has the intentional aftermath of demoralizing other individual’s speech. And it propagates an upswing in organized movements that desire to dwindle society’s assurance and faith in establishments (Marwick 11).