Free speech is not equal online

Free speech is often framed as a simple contest between the state and the citizen. Governments regulate, citizens resist, and digital platforms are cast as neutral conduits through which ideas flow freely. This framing may once have been serviceable, but it is no longer adequate. In the digital public sphere, power has shifted decisively away from individual speakers, and free speech debates that fail to account for this imbalance risk protecting form while undermining substance.

At its core, free speech is meant to ensure that individuals can express views without fear of coercion, censorship or disproportionate retaliation. Yet online, the ability to speak is not evenly distributed. Visibility, amplification and protection are unequally allocated, often by private actors whose decisions shape public discourse more profoundly than any single law.

The first imbalance is structural. A small number of large platforms mediate speech for billions of users. Their algorithms determine what is seen, what is buried and what is monetised, a point acknowledged in platform transparency reports and widely documented in academic research on digital media systems. While anyone may technically post, only a fraction are meaningfully heard. Influence accrues to those with existing followings, institutional backing or the resources to navigate engagement driven systems. The right to speak remains nominally equal, but the power to be heard is not.

This distinction matters because speech without reach is politically weak. Public debate is shaped not by the sheer volume of expression, but by its circulation. When algorithmic systems tend to amplify content that provokes strong emotional reactions, they systematically advantage certain forms of speech over others. 

Calm argument, minority viewpoints and nuanced policy discussion struggle to compete. The result is not censorship in the classical sense, but a distortion of the marketplace of ideas.

The second imbalance is economic. Online speech is embedded in business models that reward attention. Content that generates clicks, shares and prolonged engagement is promoted, while content that does not is sidelined. This dynamic favours professionalised voices, often backed by capital, over ordinary users. It also incentivises polarisation, since extreme or sensational material travels further and faster in competitive attention markets.

In such an environment, appeals to absolute free speech ring hollow. When expression is tied to monetisation, those with greater resources can buy reach, either directly through paid promotion or indirectly through coordinated networks of influence. Grassroots voices, particularly from marginalised communities, are left to navigate harassment, algorithmic neglect and audience fatigue, often without institutional protection or financial support.

A third imbalance lies in enforcement. Platform moderation is frequently criticised for being inconsistent or opaque, but the deeper problem is asymmetry. Powerful individuals and organisations can mobilise legal teams, public relations pressure or political influence to contest moderation decisions. Ordinary users cannot. The same rule may exist on paper, but its application varies sharply depending on who is speaking and how much leverage they possess.

This asymmetry is especially visible in cases of online abuse. For journalists, researchers and activists without organisational backing, sustained harassment can amount to effective silencing. Numerous studies on online safety show that targeted abuse leads to self censorship, withdrawal from public platforms and reduced participation in debate. Free speech discussions often frame moderation as a threat to expression, yet fail to confront how unchecked harassment suppresses speech just as effectively. The absence of intervention does not create neutrality, it creates an environment where the loudest and most aggressive voices dominate.

The fourth imbalance is geopolitical. Major platforms are largely headquartered in a small number of countries, yet they shape discourse globally. Their content policies reflect particular legal traditions, political sensitivities and commercial priorities. Users in the Global South often find their speech governed by opaque rules they had no role in shaping, with limited avenues for appeal or redress.

This raises difficult questions about sovereignty and democratic accountability. When a platform decides what constitutes hate speech, misinformation or acceptable dissent, it is exercising quasi regulatory power across borders. Free speech debates that focus narrowly on national laws overlook how much authority has migrated to private, transnational actors whose incentives are not aligned with democratic deliberation.

None of this implies that free speech protections are obsolete. On the contrary, they are more necessary than ever. But they must be reinterpreted for a digital context where power is diffuse, privatised and algorithmic. The question is no longer simply whether speech is allowed, but whose speech is elevated, whose is marginalised and who bears the cost of speaking.

A more honest debate would begin by acknowledging that neutrality is a myth. Platforms already make value laden choices through design, ranking and moderation. These choices shape public discourse whether they are acknowledged or not. Treating platforms as mere intermediaries absolves them of responsibility while obscuring their influence.

Policy responses should therefore focus less on absolutist slogans and more on correcting imbalances. This could include greater transparency around how content is ranked, clearer and more consistent moderation standards, and accessible appeals mechanisms for users without institutional power. It could also involve supporting public interest journalism and non commercial digital spaces that are not driven primarily by engagement metrics.

At the same time, regulation must avoid entrenching existing hierarchies. Heavy compliance burdens can advantage large firms and well resourced speakers, while chilling smaller voices. The aim should be proportionality, ensuring that safeguards against harm do not become tools of exclusion or indirect censorship.

Free speech has always been about power, even when framed as principle. Historically, it protected dissidents against the state, minorities against majorities and individuals against institutions. Online, the centres of power have shifted, but the underlying concern remains unchanged. Who can speak freely, and at what cost.

By ignoring power imbalances, contemporary debates risk defending a hollow version of free speech, one that preserves formal rights while tolerating substantive inequality. A more credible defence would recognise that expression flourishes not merely in the absence of rules, but in environments where power is checked, accountability is real and the conditions for being heard are more evenly shared.

In the digital age, protecting free speech requires more than resisting censorship. It requires confronting the structures that determine whose voices matter.

The author is a researcher in the fields of technology, media and society. Her work explores how digital platforms reshape creativity, community and commerce