Xbox is “Not a Free Speech Platform” Says Phil Spencer

The headline kind of says it all. The head of the platform known for its high engagement with social functions, Xbox Live, and a particular audience says the platform isn’t its purpose. Before anyone wants to climb up my rectum for what I’ve just said, the Xbox platform is historically the platform of the college and teenage male who wants to play multiplayer. Microsoft, I watched your little documentary thing filled with fanfare and a bit of creatively toeing the company line fibs. Even you admitted the purpose of Xbox Live is “trash talk;” which often turned to gay or racial slurs.

Everyone’s favorite E3 Uncle has been let out of the cage again and spoke with the New York Times‘ Kara Swisher on Swisher’s podcast Sway (Thanks IGN). Those with a subscription to the Times can check out the transcript of what was said here. Just under halfway through the interview between Swisher and Spencer, the topic turned to Steve Bannon, the former President’s senior adviser, and his discovery of Gamergate and trolls. Swisher asks Spencer about the connection between gaming and the polarization of opinions with the likes of politics and the social platforms, such as Xbox Live.

I won’t take the full quote of Spencer’s response, that would be dumb. Though he goes on to talk about the rapid growth of social media capabilities, the human condition and the fact someone, somewhere has gotten engaged on Xbox Live. He also notes that he and (one presumes) the team over at Xbox also talk politics and other topics. However, he goes on to say, “One of the things we’ve stated about our social network is we’re not a free speech platform. We’re not there to allow all kinds of social discourse to happen on our platform. That’s not why we exist.”

It is a fine interview but this is a problem I have with semantics. The problem comes when Swisher asks Spencer to extrapolate on the “I’m not a First Amendment platform,” comment. The US’ first amendment is to protect private citizens from government action for stating political, religious, or any other beliefs, but it does not protect that individual from private companies taking away their platform for that individual to stand on. Social media is a soapbox, it is something to amplify you above your limited vocal capabilities, but the owner of said soapbox can pull that out from under you anytime they like because you are using their platform. No platform is owned by the US government.

Anyway, this First Amendment question, which has nothing to do with the US Constitution but let’s move on anyway, led Spencer to point out it is difficult to start a political party on Xbox Live. “[…]it’s just not set up for general-purpose conversations or community,” he states, going on to say of Xbox Live, “It’s really set up for community around interactive entertainment and the games that run on our platform.” He caps this off by stating “It’s just not what our network is about.” This leads to the short transitional conversation about Facebook and Twitter, their transparency, and generally, how engagement feeds the monster for other social platforms, but a gaming company focuses on games.

Ultimately, it is an interesting conversation between the two, despite my misgivings with the phrasing around First Amendment rights. The platform itself has never (and should never) been “about free speech bro” because you are there for the game. I make it no secret, I like Phil and I do think Xbox has had strong leadership under him these last few years, developing an enticing and game-focused platform. While I still hold all gaming-focused socialization in contempt, I find the honesty Spencer is willing to provide endearing, given some will take this as the sky is falling on their personal political opinions despite that is not what is said.