Freedom vs. Facebook

As I have discussed before, Facebook has ramped up its lobbying efforts, which has drawn increased coverage across the news media. The Wall Street Journal published a particularly interesting article about this topic where it discusses Facebook's efforts to access the Chinese market, which has been closed since 2009. In the process of trying to access China, Facebook is also dealing with difficult questions of censorship and freedom of speech. In the WSJ article, Adam Connor, a Facebook lobbyist, says,

"Maybe we will block content in some countries, but not others...We are occasionally held in uncomfortable positions because now we're allowing too much, maybe, free speech in countries that haven't experienced it before."

The question of how much freedom of speech to allow is difficult to answer, particularly when there are authoritarian regimes involved. However, Facebook is often praised for allowing individuals to share thoughts with one another unfiltered. It has also been championed as a means for organizing individuals precisely when their freedoms are threatened or not granted. If Facebook decides to block content in certain countries it will seriously be doing itself a disfavor as an information provider. While we do not necessarily demand the same democratic responsibility from social media sites as we do from traditional news media, the question comes up of whether or not we should. To what extent should we treat Facebook's possible censorship decisions as part of business? Or should we demand more from a site that portrays itself as doing more than traditional business does? What is the democratic responsibility of social media and to what standard should we hold it? If censorship is allowed, some of the valuable things that social media platforms are praised for doing, such as disseminating information quickly and mobilizing individuals around a cause, might not happen.