Free expression can be reframed as a product of, not a rival to, restriction

Evidence

Costolo’s comment was leaked to the Verge and became the banner headline in the tech press in the days that followed. In a more carefully crafted op-ed for the Washington Post two months later, Twitter’s general counsel Vitaya Gadde promised changes to the site and its policies, navigating a more nuanced path between freedom of expression and the protection of users than Costolo had. “Balancing both aspects of this belief—welcoming diverse perspectives while protecting our users—requires vigilance, and a willingness to make hard choices… . Freedom of expression means little as our underlying philosophy if we continue to allow voices to be silenced because they are afraid to speak up.” Here freedom of expression was positioned not as counter to restriction but as its outcome: “Protection from threats and abuse will allow users to remain and opinions to flourish, expanding diversity and debate.” — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet, 93

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the earlier Napalm Girl claim that an image’s moral power can depend on violation of norms, and to the broader theme of platform rhetoric reframing. — connects to: Platforms claim a 1996 legal category never designed to anticipate them — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms,…, 120; A code constrains which subjects can be communicated without dictating them — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 652; Freedom and unfreedom form a double bind under identity — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2558
  • SEED: An essay angle: how tech platforms rhetorically invert protection-as-enablement — that moderation creates expression — versus journalists and critics reading them as censorship.

Broader Connections