Speech, Technology, and Democracy

The fifteenth century is described by historians as the foundational period for modern history. Events like the Renaissance, the fall of Constantinople, and Columbus crossing the Atlantic transitioned the West from the Middle Ages to early modernity. The printing press’ invention, though less exciting and famous, presides over this era. It is deemed the millennium’s main event, and A&E famously named Johannes Gutenberg, its inventor, as the Person of the Millennium in 1999. Printing allowed ideas to travel through time and space in a way never before possible, enabling the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment in succeeding centuries.

Image from World History Encyclopedia

The Enlightenment was led by philosophers such as John Locke, Voltaire, and Montesquieu. They blended Judeo-Christian ethics, such as the belief that all are created in God’s image and that the last shall be first, with the Greek rationality of Plato and Aristotle. This fusion produced modern Western Civilization’s political and ideological framework, such as freedom of speech, representative government, the rule of law, the separation of church and state, and property rights. Out of these ideas sprung the American, French, and Industrial Revolutions, and with them, liberal democracy as we know it.

Liberal democracy replaced monarchy and theocracy as the West’s dominant form of government during the nineteenth century, culminating in victory over the Kaiser’s Germany in World War I. But two challengers filled the vacuum: fascism and communism. That liberal democracy prevailed over these brutal dictatorships was not luck. It produces wealthier and more meritocratic societies and, crucially, allows its leaders to be critiqued so strategy can be corrected. Think of the difference between Americans electing Eisenhower to end the Korean War and Germans having little choice but to continue following Hitler when he was simultaneously at war with the United States, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union. Liberal democracy won the twentieth century, achieving such significant validation that Francis Fukuyama proclaimed that enacting its system was the end goal of human political history.

The twenty-first century has brought a new challenge. The internet has been described as the printing press’ successor. That same A&E special predicted that it would doom autocracies like the Soviet Union because governments would no longer be able to keep information from their people. Though this bares some truth, its impact on democracy has proven somber. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter/X are driven by algorithms that prioritize engagement over truth and create echo chambers that amplify outrage. This enables constant, increasing polarization, or fosters ideological silos that produce similar results. Misinformation, from lies to deep fakes, travel faster than fact, and when fact catches up, the silos are uninterested. The result is a permanent, escalating polarization that causes both political coalitions to view the other as an existential threat, degrading American social cohesion and jeopardizing our elections, most notably on January 6, 2021.

My view is that the printing press fostered enough speech to birth the Enlightenment and liberal democracy but that the internet and social media foster so much speech that our system can no longer function. Extreme views with no basis in reality are validated, more often by hostile actors than by experts or those acting in good faith. Candidates can ignore the media or political majorities if they can build a critical mass of support that keeps them in power. We must remember that Gutenberg did not produce Locke and the founders overnight. From 1517 to 1648, religious wars between Protestants and Catholics killed millions across Western Europe. In fact, this fracturing of medieval consensus is a parallel to social media’s current effects. We must act now to avoid liberal democracy suffering a similar fate.

This piece is meant to describe the problem, not recommend policy solutions. Current interpretations of the First Amendment make government regulation of the internet and social media an arduous task, if even the desirable route. That is before considering that the American government and political culture may be too polarized to address the environment that produces this polarization in a centrist, fair manner agreeable to most citizens. Some have suggested treating social media companies as a public utility or holding them to the standards of radio stations. Others recommend requiring them to set their algorithms to privilege content that is considered constructive, rather than divisive, as YouTube has done with its comment section. I am open to these ideas or any others that could be considered effective and appropriate. In the meantime, Americans must recognize how the internet has altered the conditions that enabled the Enlightenment, and engage with social media and the news in a responsible and informed manner until our system can adapt to this new era of speech.