Influencer Censorship Fallout: Growing Number of Influencers Choose a Censorship-Free Social Media Space

Censorship. The sight or mention of the word stirs a reaction from people of many affiliations. As one of America’s most cherished constitutional freedoms, the Right to Free Speech is perhaps also the most battered. An issue among users of social media platforms is the right to freely express themselves without their remarks or creative content being censored by the platform in question.

In the United States, the first amendment specifically protects you from the government punishing, censoring or oppressing your speech. It does not apply to private organizations. Therefore, freedom of speech does not guarantee your right to use a commercial entity like Twitter or Facebook as you see fit. Your behavior must adhere to the platform’s published guidelines, or they have every right to censor or ban you.

“However, while it’s not unconstitutional, if private platforms outright ban certain types of protected speech, it sets an uncomfortable precedent for the values of free speech.” — Lata Nott, Executive Director of the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center.

To be clear, we don’t believe these platforms are censoring because of ideology. They are doing it because it’s good business. For platforms with many users, the actions of a few users could potentially jeopardize their whole business and important partnerships. It is profit driven for them to censor users for actions that are in the public or even on other platforms. Therefore, it makes logical business sense to minimize risk by censoring and removing the few “bad actors.”

Sometimes restricting content can go too far. Most social platforms apply algorithms to not only censor content but also manage when and how often your content is shown. You may have a huge fan base that wants to see everything you do, but the impressions you receive can be dramatically reduced because of a change in how the platform makes your content visible. It might not be against any law, but it certainly effects influencers’ ability to monetize.

Claims against Facebook, Twitter, and other social platforms continue to mount, with Patreon being the latest to face accusations of censorship from its users. With Patreon, the issue is how censorship affects a user’s monetization efforts. Several popular Patreon users, Ali Alexander, and YouTuber Count Dankula, claim to have lost followers/financial backers due to censorship issues on the site. Jordan B. Peterson, Sam Harris and Dave Rubin, who were generating north of $1 million a year on the platform, shut down their Patreon accounts in protest against the company’s actions.

Decentralization and Censorship

Decentralization has often been touted as the cure for overt and harmful online censorship. The current centralized system of social media relies on a few large companies. A decentralized version would rely on peer-to-peer platforms built on a community of users. In a decentralized social media platform, individuals arbitrate censorship within their particular networks, and decide what content is acceptable as part of democratic communities.

In our current environment, centralized corporations practice “content morality” by their own shifting standards for all their users. Of course, there will always be the need to flag hate speech or illegal activity, but decentralized networks handle this issue fairly among the user community. Options such as community blocklists, highly transparent ratings, and different versions of applications allow users to decide what content they find acceptable.

Under the current situation, the large platforms employ teams of manual labor to investigate and regulate conversations and content, purportedly according to the platform’s published guidelines. However, we are left to trust them to demonstrate fairness in all judgments. Sadly, they have already proven to be unworthy of such trust. Moreover, too much time, capital, and effort is spent patrolling speech instead of focusing on the platform’s primary role.

Some suggest the development of new algorithms to regulate censorship efforts. For example, at the mention of keywords, like “guns,” the algorithm could automatically ban that post. Of course, it’s just a matter of time before offensive posters figure a way to game the system and get their posts published. Then there is the issue of false positives — postings that the algorithm identifies as offensive but aren’t. Human judgment will remain necessary even when using an algorithm, which will itself have to be regularly upgraded.

Decentralized Social Media Networks

In direct response to Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms actively censoring, banning, and shadow banning accounts of individuals with which they don’t agree, a number of decentralized social media platforms have appeared that promise more freedom. Some platforms have some sort of tie-in with cryptocurrency, tokens, or are entirely powered by a blockchain in the case of projects like Minds.com, Akasha, Steemit, and Mithril.

A much simpler option is a Personally Owned Platform (POP) through companies like escapex. POPs enable artists and influencers to meaningfully engage their audiences, gain greater autonomy, and enjoy new revenue streams free from the control, ownership, and censorship of large networks. With POPs, they have a standalone “official” app that’s not connected to a larger ecosystem like Facebook. This means, there’s no profit-driven censorship because when users own their platforms, the action of one user does not impact the business of another.

Content, engagement, and endorsements can all be shared as the POP owner desires, with a greater sense of security, greater level of connection, and greater means of earning revenue without interference. POPs are viable alternatives to social media platforms that police content and commentators.

Who is Using the POP Social Media Phenomenon?

More creators, actors, influencers, models, singers, songwriters, podcasters, authors, and celebrities are choosing to use their own POP every day, including:

• Jeremy Renner
• LA Loves The Boss
• Lexy Panterra
• Tia-Clair Toomey
• Music of Bob Marley
• Abigail Ratchford
• Greg Vaughan
• Chris D-Elia
• Ana Montana

Musician, actress, and fitness motivator LA Loves The Boss is generating over $35K per month through a POP that offers a $4.99/month subscription service and in-app purchases. On her POP, she posts exclusive content, contests, videos, giveaways, and special events — all things she doesn’t post on Twitter, Instagram, and SnapChat.

The Future of Decentralized Social Media

Decentralized social media options have barely scratched the surface. According to a survey by the 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer, 63% of Internet users are worried about fake news being circulated by major social media platforms. Instead of trusting a few all-powerful authorities, decentralized platforms implement their own anti-censorship measures and user-driven content moderation. Users themselves decide for the most part what content they deem appropriate.

Can decentralized social media apps like POPs completely take the place of other centralized options like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube? This remains to be seen. However, one crucial point remains at the forefront of all social platforms: those that create real value will gain users. And with social media platforms, real value translates into content and connections.

📝 Read this story later in Journal.

🗞 Wake up every Sunday morning to the week’s most noteworthy Tech stories, opinions, and news waiting in your inbox: Get the noteworthy newsletter >