Do we really need to be polite online? Democracy and the tone of digital conversation
In the early days of the internet, there was a naïve optimism that the digital public square would usher in a democratic golden age where every voice could be heard and power could be challenged. Now we know how it turned out instead. Ludvig Beckman, professor of political science, writes about the tone of digital conversations and how it risks tearing apart the public sphere. But should it be regulated? And if so, how?
By: Ludvig Beckman
It is not a formal duty to be polite when we post about politics online, but it is a democratic virtue. A well-functioning democracy requires citizens who can distinguish between their private impulses and their role as members of a political community.
There is a common misconception that social media are like the state, and that their moderation is a form of censorship that violates democratic values. But social media are more like private associations or media organizations. Just as a church can require a certain language from its members, or a newspaper has a responsible editor who sets the tone for the comment section, social media platforms have the right to regulate the conversation on their own surfaces. They are part of society’s “background culture,” not its legal basic structure. We should in fact welcome that platforms try to “civilize” the conversation, as long as they do so based on their own community rules.
Public reason and our virtue as citizens
So where does that leave us? If the state is not allowed to intervene and we have a legal right to be impolite, does that mean we have free rein to behave however we want? No. There is no contradiction between, on the one hand, a legal right to express oneself—even impolitely—and, on the other hand, a moral duty to refrain.
This is where the idea of public reason comes in. When we discuss society’s fundamental laws and values, we have a moral duty—a “duty of civility”—to speak in a way that others can reasonably accept. This duty is not legal, but it is central to the stability of democracy.
It is not a formal duty to be polite when we post about politics online, but it is a democratic virtue. A well-functioning democracy requires citizens who can distinguish between their private impulses and their role as members of a political community.
My conclusion is that we must be able to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. We should defend the right to be uncivil against state regulation, but at the same time encourage platforms to set boundaries and encourage ourselves to show greater restraint. Being civil is not about always having to agree. It is about respecting the shared space enough that we choose reasons over insults.
Read the scientific article (open access): Uncivil Speech in the Social Media: Democracy, Political Liberalism, and the Virtue of Public Reason
