In the famed George Orwell novel 1984, the dystopian government controls its citizens’ speech, language, and even thought. It does so in part through its so-called Ministry of Truth, an ironically named division of the government that actually exists to spread propaganda and erase “lies,” or politically inconvenient facts, from history.
Most people of good faith would find this vision of government disturbing and reject it out of hand. But while they might not realize it, voters are drifting further toward supporting the kind of digital censorship that leads to Ministry of Truth-style totalitarianism.
At least, that’s the inescapable conclusion revealed by a new survey from the Pew Research Center. Pew surveyed a representative sample of more than 11,000 people and found that support for government censorship of online information is on the rise.
Their findings reveal that 48% of the public now thinks “the government should take steps to restrict false information, even if it means losing some freedom to access and publish content.” Thankfully, 51% of respondents still say that “freedom of information should be protected — even if it means some misinformation is published online.” However, the support for government censorship is on the rise. The same survey in 2018 found just 39% in support of censorship, meaning that such support has increased significantly in the last few years.
Unfortunately, there’s a partisan divide to these findings. A whopping 65% of Democrats wants the government to restrict “false” information online, while about 70% of Republicans oppose this notion.
This shouldn’t be the case. Republican or Democrat, all people ought to oppose the government deciding what is “true” and what is “false,” let alone having officials ban “false” information from the internet.
Simply practically speaking, there is no way anyone supporting such censorship will end up happy with the results. If Democrats, for example, empower the government to ban “fake” information from the internet, well, they won’t always control that government. When former President Donald Trump was in office, he considered a lot of the criticism he faced “fake news.”
Would Democrats be OK with CNN being banned from the web? If they open this door and start using the federal government to police right-wing “misinformation,” that’s exactly what they can expect the next time the GOP takes power.
Meanwhile, a significant number of Republicans also wants the government to intervene and police online speech. This is similarly short-sighted. Attempts to regulate digital “fake news” out of existence or regulate “fairness” on social media are sure to backfire. If the GOP were to grant the federal government these powers, it would be someone like Vice President Kamala Harris wielding them in just a few years. How well do you think that will bode for conservative speech online?
Of course, the alternative to government policing of information online is more or less the status quo, where different websites and platforms make their own speech policies. Yes, social media companies have a solid liberal bias, and there are plenty of problems with the arrangement. But it’s still vastly preferable to the government stepping in.
Here’s why.
Government regulations would be one-size-fits-all for the internet. However, with companies making their own policies, you can find different speech and different rules in many different places. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, and other platforms all have different rules, and smaller competitors, such as Parler and Rumble, make different standards, too. Plus, there are always sources as varied as FoxNews.com and Salon.com to get information that you trust.
On many of the complex issues that divide the public today, no one agrees what is “true” and what is “false.” Just consider everything from Galileo’s once-considered-crazy theory that the universe revolves around the sun to the theory that the coronavirus leaked from a Wuhan lab. Ideas initially viewed as “conspiracies” or “false” often prove true or plausible over time. That is, if they’re allowed to circulate in the first place.
The status quo, albeit imperfectly, allows this to occur. While some platforms and websites may implement censorious or biased rules for online speech, there are always alternatives. When it comes to the government, though, it’s a monopoly. Using the federal government to determine what speech is allowed online would turn every election into a massive tug of war over the future of the internet. It’s much better to maintain the status quo in which different groups can find different homes online.
Initial proposals for government regulation of “misinformation” online aren’t nearly as sweeping or scary as anything in an Orwell novel. This is why Americans in good faith might support them at first glance. But attempting to ban “false” information online opens a door to a dangerous path that ultimately takes us toward a 21st-century Ministry of Truth. That’s an outcome no one should want.
Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and a Washington Examiner contributor. Subscribe to his YouTube channel or email him at [email protected].
