Should Social Media Be Censored?

Free Write, Then Work the Data

Free write (5 min): students record their initial position on whether social media should be censored — before seeing any data.

Data work: walk slides 4–8 together. The deck's own teaching notes flag what each is for:

• Slide 4 — social media use has risen sharply in a short window. Ask whether the trend matches their own families.
• Slide 5 — mobile devices drove the growth in hours online. Ask what has happened since 2018.
• Slide 6 — 53% of Americans get news from social media at least sometimes; Facebook leads, then YouTube, Twitter, Instagram.
• Slide 8 — the Knight/Gallup data on what people actually want censored. Highlight where agreement is near-total (child pornography) against where it fractures (political ads, foul language).

Assign the readings — due before Tuesday, also linked in Canvas:

• Should Bad Science Be Censored on Social Media? — Rachel Schraer, BBC
• How Online Hate Turns into Real-Life Violence — Rachel Hatzipanagos, The Washington Post
• Study: 'Accuracy Nudge' Could Curtail COVID-19 Misinformation Online — Dylan Walsh, MIT Sloan
• Should Social Media Platforms Censor Hate Speech? — Nadine Strossen, Big Think (video)

Breakouts by Position

Mindful moment (5 min): free write, then reflection space in the notebook.

In the breakout room: students say why they chose their position, read back through the seminar materials with that position in mind, and build talking points for Wednesday.

Nine small-group questions anchor the breakouts. The productive ones:

• What actually constitutes censorship? Can the group agree on one definition?
• Is misinformation on its own cause for censorship?
• How does being a private business change First Amendment analysis — where does it apply, and where does it not?
• On slide 8: 23% say hate speech should be allowable in certain circumstances. Which circumstances, and who decides?
• Why are people drawn to misinformation over true information — and what would make you personally better at finding facts?

Open the Discussion

Mindful moment (5 min), then the whole-group seminar. Discussion questions are on slide 17:

• Can removing content ever be free of bias, or will human judgment always be in it? If perfect objectivity is impossible, is censorship still an acceptable tool?
• Should platforms promote free speech even though they aren't legally bound by the First Amendment?
• Is censoring objectionable content "babying" people? Should users be trusted to judge for themselves?
• Are any of the alternatives to censorship promising — labels, obscuring, accuracy nudges?
• Should government ever set standards for content on social media?

Before students leave: notebook prompts capture the major themes and lingering questions, and each student finds one new article or resource to bring Thursday.

Student-Sourced Evidence

Mindful moment (5 min), then students share the resources they found and log each other's links in the notebook. The discussion continues from Wednesday's unresolved questions rather than restarting.

This is the day to push on the empirical claims the deck raises but doesn't settle:

• Removing accounts disrupted COVID misinformation — but pushed supporters across multiple platforms. Did it work?
• Labeling false headlines may make readers assume every unlabeled headline is true. Is the cure worse?
• False information is 70% more likely to be retweeted, reaching the first 1,500 people six times faster. Does speed alone justify intervention?

Score Your Participation

Four reflective questions — what went well, what to improve next week, what they learned, and whether the week changed a pre-existing belief — then the participation matrix, where students mark whether they spoke, referenced the materials, asked a question, responded to a classmate, or interrupted someone.

Students also use the participation rubric to score the week and explain the score.