Who Owns Our Conversations?

As social media platforms intertwine with our daily lives and functions, it is hard to look past the corporations and billionaire CEOs that control them. What were originally seen as communities to foster connections now house algorithms and features that control what we see daily.

Centralized Sites (or “public squares”)

Centralized sites, like social media platforms, are often referred to as public squares. This means users should be free to say anything and be open to all ideas, whether biased, harmful, or radical. While we have the idea that social media platforms are “free,” like a public square, some argue that the reality is they are controlled by private corporations.

Regardless of opinion, having “public squares” does have some benefits.

1. Centralized sites host many users in one space. That means one user can reach all those people; more than they would in real life.
2. Posts can amplify marginalized voices. Those who are usually excluded from traditional media can have their fair share in vocalizing their opinion and have them meet broad audiences.
3. Easy to coordinate social action. Movements like #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter blossomed from social media, connecting people with shared experiences. It also unites them with people in solidarity.

But what are the drawbacks?

1. These platforms are privately owned and operated for profit. Facebook, Instagram, etc. are trying to prioritize engagement and advertising what brings them money. Democratic discussions or public welfare is not their first concern.
2. Algorithms want to increase engagement, so emotional or polarizing content can get pushed. This can include misinformation, harassment, and conspiracy theories.
3. Platforms are private actors, so they aren’t under First Amendment constraints. The moderation of their content can be inconsistent and biased under corporate policies.

So…should we depend on the “good will” of their owners?

No, I don’t think users should expect these platform owners to do the right thing. Their best interest does not coincide with public interest, but rather what will get them the most profit. Remember, they are privately owned, so they answer to shareholders and advertisers, not their audiences.

In this article by The New York Times, it gives an example of the will of owners. In early 2025, some Instagram and Facebook users found that they were following Donald Trump, JD Vance, and Melania Trump on the platforms without ever physically doing so. The users also found trouble unfollowing the accounts, to which Meta responded that none of the accounts were automatically followed.

Even if the occurrence was unintended, it dramatically enforced what political content users were receiving regardless of their party affiliation. There were no strong protections against it, showing that Meta’s private ownership has power over public discourse.

It also raises the concern that the mechanics of Facebook and Instagram can shift dramatically without user consent or notice, making them fall further away from a democratic, community-based space.

Should we look for more decentralized environments?

Decentralized spaces, like Mastodon, are not run by a big corporation, but by independently run servers. It differentiates from platforms run by Meta because each server sets its own rules and moderation policies, but users can still interact across servers.

Spaces like these give online communities more freedom and make it harder for one company to control everything. They’re incredibly useful when they enforce protections against hate speech and harassment, but need to do it fairly and transparently.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 allows platforms to moderate content without being legally liable for everything users post, which is part of why platforms can remove harmful content, but also gives them control over what stays up or gets removed. To get a more ideal public space, I think we need to balance decentralized platforms where communities have control, with clear guidelines to keep people safe.

Should government intervene?

Decentralized spaces give online communities more freedom and are not under a corporation’s rule. But centralized spaces can be really useful when they enforce protections against hate speech and harassment.

This is where things can get tricky, especially with what we have seen historically with harmful online messages. In my opinion, we need regulation when it comes to racism, bullying, and other forms of harassment.

Government action can help here because they can push for more transparency about how algorithms work, so users can understand why certain content is promoted, hidden, or removed. This way, platforms can continue to keep people safe without letting few companies have control a lot of online public conversation.

So, who really owns what we say to each other?

Verbally, and according to the First Amendment, we own our words. But once they are shared on a social media platform, the company who owns it controls how they’re shared, who sees it, or if they’re removed. Even moderation tools that are meant to protect users gives the platforms a lot of influence over public conversation.

The reality is that private companies have more control over our online speech than we do. Because of this, it makes it most important for them to be transparent and responsible with how our words are disseminated.

Users shouldn’t have to rely on a platform’s good will to have their voices heard safely. Instead, the platform should be working in favor of their users, striving to protect their voices while giving them control over how their opinions are shared and seen.