Assignment: Choose One Topic From The List And Write A Four ✓ Solved

Assignment: Choose one topic from the list and write a four-

Assignment: Choose one topic from the list and write a four-page, MLA-formatted argumentative paper. The paper must use Times New Roman, 12-point font, be double-spaced with one-inch margins, include a thesis statement, topic sentences, and a strong conclusion. Include endnotes and at least four citations from four different reputable sources (no Wikipedia).

Topics: A) Are you for or against gun control? Why? B) Is Big Tech stifling free speech? C) Is College a scam? D) Capital Punishment: For or against? E) Which amendment in the Bill of Rights would you amend, change, or delete? Why?

Paper For Above Instructions

Big Tech platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and their successors have become the primary public squares of the digital era. They enable rapid information sharing, mobilization, and participation in political and civic life; yet they also exert unprecedented control over what counts as permissible speech. This paper argues that while these platforms expand opportunities for expression, their moderation practices, algorithmic amplification, and market incentives can and do chill certain voices and viewpoints. Because these platforms are private actors, their governance of speech operates under different legal and normative constraints than government action in a traditional public square. Consequently, free speech on social media is not simply a mirror of constitutional protection; it requires careful policy design to balance openness with safety, accuracy, and accountability.

Content moderation on social media is a central mechanism through which speech is shaped. Tarleton Gillespie emphasizes that platform governance is not a neutral or purely technical process; it reflects normative judgments about what constitutes hate, harassment, misinformation, or safety concerns. Moderation decisions are carried out by opaque human and algorithmic processes, and users frequently encounter inconsistent enforcement across platforms and over time. This opacity diminishes trust and raises concerns about bias, particularly when content from marginalized communities is disproportionately sanctioned or removed. In this sense, Big Tech can both enable and constrain speech: it broadens the audience for some voices while curtailing others through opaque or uneven rules. As a result, the first amendment’s free-speech guarantees do not automatically translate to private digital spaces where terms of service and moderation policies prevail (Gillespie).

Algorithmic amplification compounds moderation effects by deciding which messages rise to visibility. Platforms rely on engagement-driven ranking to maximize time spent on the service and advertising revenue. This design tends to elevate sensational or controversial content, regardless of its veracity, which can distort public discourse and contribute to the spread of misinformation. The governance of algorithms thus becomes a speech governance problem: what the algorithms choose to promote or demote shapes what users encounter, discuss, and believe. Jonathan Zittrain and other scholars have argued that the architecture of digital platforms creates new forms of gatekeeping—less visible than traditional editors but equally powerful in shaping conversation. The result is a public sphere that is simultaneously more accessible and more performative, with speech shaped by the platform’s incentive structure (Zittrain; Sunstein).

Beyond moderation and algorithms, the economic architecture of Big Tech magnifies concerns about speech and influence. The public-facing voice on these platforms is shaped by data-driven advertising models and network effects that reward scale and engagement. Shoshana Zuboff’s analysis of surveillance capitalism shows how data extraction and prediction markets transform user behavior into commodities, creating powerful incentives to tailor content to maximize provocation and retention. This dynamic can skew the range of acceptable discourse toward strategies that maximize attention, sometimes at the expense of nuanced, careful, or minority viewpoints. Robert McChesney’s work on digital disconnect similarly highlights how corporate control over information flows can hinder democratic deliberation by concentrating power over what society sees and values (Zuboff; McChesney).

Nonetheless, proponents of platform moderation argue that private platforms are not public utilities and have legitimate concerns about safety, defamation, harassment, and illegal content. They contend that humane and proactive content management protects users from harm and aligns with community standards that many users support. Tarleton Gillespie and Christian Fuchs underscore that regulation should be careful not to erode legitimate safety practices or drive speech underground. The central challenge is to design governance that preserves legitimate safety and accuracy goals while minimizing the risk of political bias, over-censorship, and suppression of dissent. This balance requires greater transparency, predictable standards, and due process in moderation decisions (Gillespie; Fuchs).

To address these tensions, several policy avenues merit consideration. Strengthening transparency around moderation policies, appeals processes, and the practical outcomes of algorithmic ranking can help rebuild trust and accountability. Reform discussions surrounding liability protections for platforms (often framed as Section 230 in the United States) should consider whether safeguards are needed to ensure responsibility without stifling innovation or restricting free expression. Independent oversight mechanisms—comprising diverse stakeholders who can review moderation decisions and algorithmic practices—could provide a check on private power while preserving platform autonomy to enforce community standards. Finally, empowering users with greater control—such as easily portable accounts, transparent notices of changes to terms, and opt-in consent for data practices—can reduce asymmetries between platforms and individual speakers (Gillespie; Sunstein; Zuboff; Pew Research Center).

Overall, free speech in the digital era is not a straightforward extension of constitutional rights to private platforms. It requires reconciling the benefits of open, widely accessible communication with the responsibilities platforms have to protect users and maintain an informed public sphere. Recognizing the distinctive role of platforms as private conductors of speech—rather than government arbiters—can guide policy decisions toward reforms that promote openness, accountability, and civil discourse, while still mitigating harm. The goal should be a more transparent, fair, and inclusive digital public square where a broad spectrum of voices can participate without fearing unexplained or uneven suppression.

In sum, Big Tech both enables and constrains free speech. A nuanced approach—one that respects free expression, enhances transparency, and provides oversight—can help ensure that these platforms serve as true engines of democratic deliberation rather than unaccountable gatekeepers. The path forward lies in balancing liberty with responsibility, leveraging the benefits of scale and innovation while safeguarding the core values at the heart of free expression.

References

• Gillespie, Tarleton. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Costs of Digital Citizenship. Yale University Press, 2018.
• Zittrain, Jonathan. The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. Yale University Press, 2008.
• Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. Alfred A. Knopf, 2010.
• Vaidhyanathan, Siva. Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2018.
• Sunstein, Cass R. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press, 2017.
• Fuchs, Christian. Social Media: A Critical Introduction. SAGE Publications, 2017.
• Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs, 2019.
• McChesney, Robert W. Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet into a Tool of Inequality. The New Press, 2013.
• Pew Research Center. “Americans’ Views on Free Speech and Censorship in the Digital Age.” Pew Research Center, 2019.
• Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017).