Based on case study Answer the following Discussion Questions: Case study Freedom of speech is arguably the most valued

[answerhappygod]

Based on case study Answer the following Discussion
Questions:
Case study
Freedom of speech is arguably the most valued right granted in
the American constitution, but how should it be limited in speech
that potentially affects the health of communities and individuals?
This controversy has recently hit the world of social media in
regard to the growing number of “anti-vax” groups, or communities
of parents concerned about the supposed dangers of vaccinating
their children. As the online presence of anti-vaccine messages
continues to increase—and potentially threatens the health of
children and communities—the calls for limiting the reach of such
messages have grown louder. Should communication asserting
messages that seem to be wrong, unhelpful, or potentially harmful
be censored or “deplatformed” by private social media
companies?
Many are worried about anti-vax messages and content because
they seem to risk undoing the many gains of vaccination programs.
With the recent surge of measles cases this year after declared
nationally eliminated in 2000 (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2018), the need for widespread vaccination is seemingly
more evident than ever. It is very possible for diseases we
thought dead to society to return if vaccination rates decline, and
with a strength we would not be equipped to handle without large
scale immunity. Anti-vax groups typically express messages
about the supposed danger associated with immunization, and thus
contribute to such risks by convincing many to refrain from
vaccinating themselves or their children. To make matters
worse, those who choose not to get vaccinated are not only risking
hurting themselves, but also those around them. Declining rates of
vaccinations decrease what’s called “herd immunity,” an
epidemiologic term that refers to the resistance a population,
including those who cannot be vaccinated such as those with
autoimmune diseases, has to the spread of a certain disease if
enough people are protected against it (Young, 2018).
The need for herd immunity, as well as concerns about the lack
of scientific support for anti-vax messages, has prompted many
social media outlets to restrict anti-vax content. For instance,
Pinterest, online hotspot for sharing creative inspiration, has
removed search results for the key word “vaccine” because of the
influx of anti-vax articles (Thompson, 2019), social media has
pulled advertisements and recommended videos related to
incorporating anti-vax into parenting (Sands, 2019), Amazon has
removed anti-vax documentaries and ads from Prime Video (Spangler,
2019), and Facebook is working to place lower priority on anti-vax
search results and removing related groups from those recommended
to users (Cohen & Bonifield, 2019). These actions appear
justified to many, since the World Health Organization just labeled
vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 health threats of
2019. Many believe that censoring or “deplatforming” seems to
be the safest option for protecting the public, as erasing the
materials will prevent such messages from affecting individuals’
decision-making.
Some might worry that these efforts to suppress the posting and
spread of anti-vax content go too far. Shouldn’t people have
control of their decision making, a skeptic might ask? This
includes one’s decision to publish, view, and internalize anti-vax
information. Social media is a crossroads for opinions on every
subject—many of which seem incoherent and harmful to some segments
of the population—so prohibiting one side of the vaccine debate
might seem unproductive. There is also the concern about how to go
about identifying “anti-vaxxer” content. Social Media describes
anti-vax videos as content that violates the platform’s guidelines
against “dangerous and harmful” content. Yet, the definition of
dangerous and harmful can vary, and it is unclear that espousing an
unscientific position is immediately dangerous. While some anti-vax
materials may be exhibiting false scientific information, others
may be simply expressing one’s point of view or skepticism.
Additionally, information may be published regarding a religion or
ideology’s reasoning for avoiding immunization that could be
educational for followers or outsiders, at least in terms of
informing them of why certain groups don’t support vaccination
efforts. Social media efforts to censor anti-vax content quickly
begin to look like efforts to sort religious or political views out
by their alleged consequences. This relates to an abiding concern
about censoring or stopping speech that some find objectionable or
harmful—who judges these facts, and what errors are they prone to
make? As Marko Mavrovic of the Prindle
Post warns, “Once you no longer value free speech, it
becomes much easier to justify eliminating speech that you simply
disagree with or believe should not exist.” Beyond these worries
are the concerns about unintended consequences: by removing or
obscuring anti-vax content, social media might only provide
anti-vaxxers with more “evidence” that powerful interests are
trying to stop their messages about vaccines: “Demonetizing videos
is likely to only affirm anti-vaxxer beliefs of being persecuted,
making them more difficult to reach” (Sands, 2019). This
could diminish any hope of changing the minds of
anti-vaxxers. Additionally, the anti-vax censorship attempts
thus far have been less fruitful than predicted, calling into
question whether this movement is worth the effort. In
analyzing the effects of suppression
efforts, CNN recently reported that
“misinformation about vaccines continues to thrive on Facebook and
Instagram weeks after the companies vowed to reduce its
distribution on their platforms” (Darcy, 2019).
It seems to be the consensus of scientists and experts that
vaccines help many more than they risk harming, and that ensuring
only true information about their effectiveness helps to create a
healthy society. But how do we proceed down the road of
deplatforming, limiting, or banning a certain sort of content
without censoring content that is more reasonable or nuanced,
stymieing unpopular opinions that might turn out to be right or
somewhat correct, or leading to further backlashes by those
censored?