We live in an era of information surplus. The average person is arguably provided with too many sources to decipher right from wrong. The plethora of resources available makes it easy for media outlets to bend consumers to their will, as any opinion can be supported by “facts” if one can find the references to support their claims. This has placed the burden on tech companies to censor the misinformation that disingenuous media outlets and interest groups throw at the reader. 

However, it is unethical for tech companies to censor and remove ideologically-challenging beliefs. It is not their job to decide what is morally correct. Rather, it is their duty to provide us with the means to access the information we desire and alert readers of the validity (or lack thereof) of the piece. The onus is on the individual platforms to set standards that vet their publishing processes. 

AT&T was asked by Congress on Feb. 22 to provide more information on how they are combating the plague of misinformation, lies and conspiracy theories that are disseminated through their platforms. This is a valid step in the right direction, as long as the censored content is false and/or qualifies as hate speech. It would take censorship too far if AT&T were to ban controversial statements that challenge the company’s morals, even though it is within their power to do so because companies such as AT&T have grown to become means for people to voice their opinions. 

The argument has become a cultural one rather than a legal one. Tech companies are private entities, and they are not held to the same regulations as the federal government. It is within the individual platforms’ power to dictate what information users can and cannot publish. They have their First Amendment rights to set their own editorial policy. However, big tech has arguably grown to such a scale that its impact on society is significant. The industry is controlled by a few conglomerates, limiting the public’s alternatives. Social media platforms are not merely grounds for friends to connect; they are microphones for people to project their beliefs. 

More and more, corporations are expected to be social advocates. Ignoring social issues is a public relations nightmare. But there is a difference between censoring misinformation and censoring ideologically-differing content. There is no definitive line limiting what private companies can and cannot publish. As big tech continues to grow, American society faces new obstacles. One of those is deciding how much these companies should be able to restrict on their platforms when their presence in society is no longer minimal. 

It is a challenging landscape for companies to navigate. Instead of limiting the type of information people can produce and read, ensure the quality of it. There should be a baseline standard practice that media outlets stand by before allowing a piece to be published. Articles should go through a universally-agreed upon fact-checking process. 

On social media outlets, people touting false claims should be notified by the platform that what they are posting is misinformation. A notification should be attached to the post, letting the viewer know that some of the information may be incorrect. 

In addition, citing sources is imperative whenever a claim is made. The expectation must be raised to hold companies and individuals accountable for the sources they use, so the average reader can find the root of the information.

The problem is that the standard for quality work has disintegrated and misinformation is not always flagged. As we deal with these new problems, we must take careful steps in how censorship is addressed. The future is one where the credibility of published content will not need to be questioned.