| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Restrictions on the internet: the power struggle for accessing information | >
> | Deplatforming: social responsibility or self-interest? | | | | |
<
< | -- By CamiloValdivieso - 08 Dec 2021 | >
> | -- By CamiloValdivieso - 18 Jan 2022 | | |
| |
<
< | Introduction | >
> | Sharing information and opinions has been essential to human society for thousands of years. By the end of the XX century, the internet transformed how information is shared. This new sociological condition through which every human being is connected has brought about a radical democratization regarding the power to publish and to share opinions. Today, social media has become the largest forum through which humans interact. It has become one of the most transformative movements of our times, as virtually anyone can share anything online. However, this movement has faced some resistance, as certain actors have sought to limit and control what information can be shared. | | | | |
<
< |
In 2017, when Cloudflare banned the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer, Cloudflare’s CEO, Mathew Prince, reflected on his actions by stating: “Having made that decision we now need to talk about why it is so dangerous. [...] Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power.”
Since then, kicking people off social media platforms and other websites -a technique known as deplatforming- has become a common practice. Perhaps the most notable case occurred earlier this year, when outgoing President Donald Trump’s social media accounts were suspended across Facebook, Twitter, YouTube? , Instagram, Snapchat, Twitch, and TikTok? . This happened in the days following the January 6 Capitol Insurrection, and soon after, thousands of accounts primarily dedicated to spreading right-wing conspiracy theories were also banned.
While some celebrated these bans on violent hate groups and extremists, others now worry about the power of social media platforms in determining access to information. This article seeks to discuss the possible dangers and benefits of internet restriction from social media platforms. Ultimately, it will show that there is power struggle over who controls access to information, which is seriously endangering democratic values in our society.
Banning extremism: the potential benefits of deplatforming | >
> | In 2017, when Cloudflare banned the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer, Cloudflare's CEO, Mathew Prince, reflected on his actions by stating that: "Having made that decision we now need to talk about why it is so dangerous. [...] Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power." | | | | |
<
< | Earlier this year, in a thread urging tech companies to do more to stop racists from organizing in social media, antifa activist Gwen Snyder tweeted that: “Deplatforming Nazis is step one in beating far right terror”. Defenders of deplatforming suggest that it is an effective tool at combatting online extremism, even if it is not risk-free. | >
> | Since then, kicking people off social media platforms and other websites -a technique known as deplatforming- has become a common practice. Perhaps the most notable case occurred in early 2021 when outgoing President Donald Trump's social media accounts were suspended across Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitch, and TikTok? . This happened in the aftermath of the January 6 Capitol Insurrection; and soon after, thousands of accounts primarily dedicated to spreading right-wing conspiracy theories were also banned. While some celebrated these bans, others questioned the social media giants' role as "gatekeepers" of information. | | | | |
<
< | A 2016 study of ISIS deplatforming found that the organization’s leaders lost followers and influence as they were forced to move from platform to platform. Preventing these groups from using platforms makes it more difficult for them to reach different people and recruit followers, given the fact that they use social media as one of their main vehicles for spreading their message. | >
> | Advocates of deplatforming commonly defend the technique by highlighting its effectiveness. As the Trump case shows, this is true for political figures: more than a year after being suspended from several social media platforms, the former Republican President has now almost vanished from daily public debate. It is also true for extremist groups: as a 2018 study of the extremist group Britain First showed, after being banned from Facebook and Twitter, not only did the group's engagement decrease, but the amount of content it published online also fell. Thus, despite the fact that deplatforming can arguably bring some benefits, the real question is at what cost. | | | | |
<
< | In 2018, another study tracking the deplatformed extremist group Britain First found that, after being banned from Facebook and Twitter, not only did the group’s engagement decrease, but the amount of content it published online also fell. Thus, the authors of the study concluded: “Removal is clearly effective, even if it is not risk-free. Despite the risk of groups migrating to more permissive spaces, mainstream social media companies should continue to seek to remove extremist groups that breach their terms of service.” | >
> | In addition to this, advocates of deplatforming also argue that this practice can lead us to have a better and well-informed public debate. In a sense, they seem to be searching for some kind of moderation in public debate, where social media platforms act as the arbitrators over what gets to be published and whatnot. But this search for moderation is at the least worrisome. | | | | |
<
< | While deplatforming extremists can arguably bring some benefits, the real question is at what cost. The risk is not migration to more permissive spaces, as the authors of this last study suggested, but the impact of these decisions on people’s rights. Ultimately, the discussion revolves around who controls what information can be accessed. And here, there is a dangerous power struggle that has just begun. | >
> | The discussion around moderation in public debate tends to revolve around what happens between platforms and users (that is to say: who gets banned and why). However, recent examples have shown us another side of the story. One in which social media platforms, like all companies, actually worry about the politics of the countries in which they operate. That is because if they end up on the wrong side of the political spectrum, companies could face unfavorable regulations and even get banned from the country entirely. A recent example of this happened in Nigeria, where the government banned Twitter after the platform deleted a tweet from the country's President and suspended his account. | | | | |
<
< | Dangers of deplatforming: more than free speech | >
> | But this is a rare exception. Increasingly, platforms are arranging their moderation systems to minimize any political fallout. In India, Facebook has been trying to tighten the relationship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, despite the increasing violence against the country's Muslim minority. In Myanmar, a coup that took place in early 2021 forced the same platform to welcome groups it had previously flagged as terrorists and to ban other groups that opposed the new regime. | | | | |
<
< | One of the biggest arguments against deplatforming is that it is a violation of free speech. Supporters of this position assert that when certain users are targeted based on the content they publish, freedom of expression is at risk. Despite this, experts on the matter have concluded that social media purges are not subject to the First Amendment rule that protects free speech in the United States. That is because the Constitution protects against government action censoring a citizens’ speech, and social media platforms are private companies. Considering this, perhaps the real question we must ask is: what is the role of social media companies in regulating online content? | >
> | Perhaps the most revealing example took place in Vietnam, where the company faced pressure from the Communist Party to moderate against "anti-state" content, by adopting the repressive values of the regime into its moderation strategy. Here, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally directed the company to comply with the government's request, saying it was "more important to ensure that their services remain available for millions of people who rely on them every day." While in the United States Zuckerberg has been portrayed as somewhat of a "champion" of free speech who has been for the most part reluctant to remove misleading content, in Vietnam (a country in which the social network earns more than $1 billion in annual revenue), the CEO was quick to side-in with the government and modify its moderation system in favor of the regime. In that case, free speech and moderation were not as important as protecting the company's (and his own) self-interest by aligning with the government. | | | | |
<
< | Much of this comes down to the nature of social media today. Now that online platforms have evolved from re-publishers of third-party information, to gatekeepers of discussion and human interaction, many argue that they have replaced traditional public forums and have become the de facto ‘public square’. While these unregulated companies arbitrarily decide what information can be accessed, one may but worry about what is at stake. | >
> | What we see with this practice is that social media platforms, just like the traditional press, seem to be playing an active role in politics. The time in which companies like Facebook and Twitter were pretending to be neutral gatekeepers of information has long passed. Moreover, their role as gatekeepers of information is now more questionable than ever. | | | | |
<
< | As social media companies become great forums of discussions, lack of certainty around their decision-making process raises significant concerns on their potential abuse of power. In the end, it is not only a question about free speech. It is a bigger debate about power. About who controls what gets to be said, and what gets to be silenced. And this is a battle that is just starting. One in which governments will not give in so easily to social media companies, and in which people will be left helpless, with less access to information, and thus, with less knowledge. | >
> | Ultimately, this kind of realpolitik isn't what deplatformers had in mind. The goal was to push social media platforms to take responsibility for their impact on the world. But instead of making them more responsible, the power to decide on what information reaches the public has made them more unapologetic about social, economic, and political realities. Today, we are seeing companies that are simply protecting their own interest. | | | | |
<
< | Conclusion: the battle has just begun
On June 4, 2021, the Government of Nigeria banned Twitter after the site deleted a tweet from the country’s President, and suspended his account. One day after the company was banned, it tweeted through its official account: “We are deeply concerned by the blocking of Twitter in Nigeria. Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society”.
Twitter’s position might come as a surprise from a company that has been censoring its users’ content for years. If Twitter really cared about protecting human rights, a first step would be to stop its own arbitrary censorship of ideas. What some celebrate today (like banning terrorist groups) might well come the other way around tomorrow, when someone wakes up and decides to prohibit a different type of content.
Deplatforming is not a new practice. However, the action taken by the Nigerian government is striking, as it shows the power struggle that has begun between states and social media companies. Ultimately, the concern is not about free speech or human rights. It is about power and control. While governments and social media platforms battle around who has the last word in determining what information reaches the public, citizens are left stranded: access to information is arbitrarily being limited, and therefore free thought and other democratic values are at risk.
The battle has just begun. | >
> | Despite this reality, we must embrace the fact that social media is here to stay. With all its flaws, it can also have many benefits. Through it, we can improve not only the quality of human intelligence but also the quantity. And this starts with more access to information. Therefore, deplatforming and censorship should be limited in favor of free access to information, that is, of sharing knowledge. Only then can social media start playing an active role in making the world a better place. | | | | |
<
< |
I don't understand the claim. All editors "deplatofrm" everything they don't publish. Anyone in the world wealthy enough to possess a computer and a telecommunications account can stand up a webserver and give everyone in the world access with no more than a click to any information or opinion they wish to share. There is no aspect of the current power struggles over information and expression that hasn't been going on in some part of human society for the last thousand years except that radical democratization of the power to publish, which—despite the familiar oligopolization by the platforms and heavy-handed intrusions by state power—is absolutely new and remains potentially transformative. Surely whatever is to be said on the now-hackneyed side hyper-ventilating about "censorship" by the platforms should at least take that fact into account?
| | |
|
|