Social media algorithms, as we know them today, have been around for 15 years. Born with Facebook’s introduction of ranked, personalized news feeds in 2009, these algorithms have fundamentally transformed how we interact online. Yet, like many teenagers, they now pose significant challenges for those hoping to curb their excesses.

In 2023, governments worldwide have taken steps to limit the impacts of harmful content and disinformation—effects that are often amplified by algorithms. From Brazil’s temporary ban on X (formerly Twitter) to the European Union’s fines threatening tech firms, there’s a growing push for accountability. Even the UK and US are exploring laws that could reshape how social media platforms operate.

But with these government interventions come accusations of restricting free speech, challenging the internet’s original vision of free expression. Are these measures necessary, or do they interfere with the freedom that the digital space was meant to provide?

The Evolution of Social Media Algorithms

When Facebook rolled out its ranking algorithm 15 years ago, users no longer saw posts in chronological order. Instead, they saw what Facebook’s algorithm decided was most relevant—based on data gathered from user interactions. This shift meant that posts about controversial topics, which typically garnered more engagement, were prioritized.

For some, this algorithmic interference has disrupted the free exchange of ideas that was once possible in the early days of the internet. Kai Riemer and Sandra Peter, professors at the University of Sydney, argue that “algorithms have fundamentally reshaped the nature of free speech, not necessarily by restricting what can be said, but by determining who gets to see what content.”

Instead of ideas competing freely on their merits, algorithms now amplify or suppress content, distorting the marketplace of ideas.

Shaping Our Conversations and Public Discourse

Because algorithms reward engagement, they often promote contentious posts. This can result in a distorted mirror of public sentiment on social media, overrepresenting the fringes of political opinion and muffling the views of the majority.

Critics argue that while platforms claim to champion free speech, their algorithms may inadvertently threaten it. As Theo Bertram, former vice president of public policy at TikTok, puts it, “Whether you succeed or fail in the market for attention is not the same thing as whether you have the freedom to speak.”

This raises a broader question: Is free speech only about the right to speak, or is it also about the right to be heard?

The Algorithmic Society: A New Era of Free Speech

Our era has been dubbed “the algorithmic society,” where social media platforms and search engines govern speech in ways once reserved for nation-states. This means that straightforward guarantees of freedom of speech, like those in the US Constitution, no longer fully apply.

As Jack Balkin of Yale University points out, “The First Amendment, as normally construed, is simply inadequate to protect the practical ability to speak” in this new digital landscape. According to Riemer and Peter, the way platforms shape speech through algorithms calls for a rethink of how we regulate free speech online. Current debates focus on content moderation, but they overlook the deeper issue of how business models incentivize platforms to algorithmically shape what we say.

The Search for Solutions: Taming the Algorithm?

Despite the growing concerns, algorithms aren’t going away. In fact, they may hold the key to discovering new perspectives. Bertram argues that “recommendation engines provide greater diversity and discovery than just following people we already know,” helping to expand the conversation rather than restrict it.

Some propose that giving users more control over what they see could be a way forward. New platforms like Bluesky are experimenting with this idea, allowing users to customize the algorithm that filters their content. Others, like Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, suggest reverting to chronological feeds to restore user control and reduce algorithmic interference.

Yet, as Princeton professor Arvind Narayanan has pointed out, even chronological feeds aren’t neutral. “There is, unfortunately, no neutral way to design social media,” he says.

A Third Way: Middleware and User Control

One potential solution comes from US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, who proposes the idea of “middleware.” Middleware would give users control over the content they see, using independent services to curate posts, rather than relying solely on platforms’ inbuilt algorithms. This could restore a sense of agency, allowing users to customize their online experiences according to their preferences.

As social media algorithms mature, there are signs that users are already taking control. A recent survey by Gartner revealed that only 28% of Americans still enjoy publicly documenting their lives online, down from 40% in 2020. Instead, people are increasingly retreating to private group chats with trusted friends and family, seeking more meaningful and accountable conversations.

In the end, it seems the future of social media algorithms might not be dictated by big tech or governments, but by the users themselves.

As we enter the era of algorithmic maturity, the question remains: Can we find a balance between the benefits algorithms provide and the challenges they pose to free speech and democratic discourse? The conversation is ongoing, but one thing is clear—users are reclaiming control over their digital experiences, and the days of unchecked algorithmic dominance may soon be over.