No-Platforming on Social Media: A leap in the Wrong Direction.

Some critical thinking is always necessary to avoid the desirable pull of ones judgement towards certain and absolute conclusions. Social media and social networking sites are palpably not bad things, at least not wholly bad. The ability to communicate and connect with people from all over the world and to share ideas, opinions and knowledge alone are convincing in demonstrating the goodness bestowed and benefits afforded by these sites. However, one cautiously avoids labelling them as universally ‘good’, so as to avoid the demented steps into the pitfalls of affording weak, unfounded generalisations. (Generalisations, to add, being the most mutilating of abuses to rational thought.) In essence, they’re tools. And, as with all tools, they can be used for terrible ends. (The practical hammer, designed for knocking nails into wood, has been utilised for more menacing, bloodier, expirations.) Just like the faithful radio was utilised by Télévision Libre des Collines to incite and direct genocidal violence in Rwanda in the 1990s, more recently, anti-vaxxers have employed YouTube and Facebook to spread their unfounded, deceitful rhetoric, in an attempt to proselytize the ignorant into adopting their warped, conspiracy-laden mindset. The overthrow of the corrupt president Mubarak in Egypt in 2011 is an example of its utilisation to more progressive ends.

Now, the executives of these social media corporations, whose platforms were once seen as open spaces for discussing ideas and opinions (notably in the case of Twitter, which is the primary sphere where conversations are now had), have promoted themselves into a new capacity, that of editors. (Will the old media’s fear of the new media be lessened by this bridging of roles?) The vanguard to open discussion and debate have changed course and tact. Through ‘no-platforming’ controversial figures, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Snapchat, Patreon, Instagram (et cetera) have appointed themselves as arbiters-in-chief of what can and cannot be said; as the total and final authority on what ideas and opinions can be discussed in this relatively new, but hugely populated, public domain. They have become cardinal-referees of what is right and wrong, and of what is valid and irrelevant. A reality completely undermining of their mission to allow users to share “… what matters to them”. (Of course, people can share what matters to them, providing it additionally matters to the corporation executives.) It allows for the ideologies, beliefs and perceptions of the executives to influence not only the content of debate, but the very existence of debate itself. And as is the nature of preventing exposure to controversial and unpopular ideas in a sphere of this size, the effect will extend far beyond the confines of Facebook; in stifling exposure to contrary ideas they are supporting at the very least, and legitimising at the most, the ‘status quo’. If people are not exposed to conflicting ideas, they will likely come to accept the prevailing consensus, whether the consensus is correct or not. Online censorship is an unwelcome obstacle to knowledge progression.

It’s not hyperbole to argue that the sites that limit open discussion, often stifling them completely, are more reflective of the People’s Republic of China than the [mostly] open and uncensored western nations; masquerading as being about the people, but really using underhand means to ensure discussion reflects the beliefs of the few at the top of hierarchy. It’s unwise to pretend that Facebook’s speech-policing behaviour can be considered akin to China’s political and cultural censorship enterprise, but it’s worthwhile acknowledging that Facebook has a monthly user-base of 2.38 billion people, while China’s population is a comparatively meager 1.39 billion.

One has sympathy when the limits of open discussion are set before ‘incitement of violence’, but challenging ideas that run counter to popular discourse, regardless of how offensive they may be to some (never all) should patently not be silenced. By silencing ideas that are ‘offensive’ to some, you are entering into the murky waters of subjectivity: what is offensive to one man, is not necessarily offensive to another. Perceptions of immorality vary from one individual to the next, and within and between cultures. If a small-group of individuals are given the total authority to dictate what is offensive or immoral, the silencing is certainly going to reflect their own narrow ideologies and subjective interpretations of what is belligerent. And, without digressing into a discussion of the indisputable benefits to psychological wellbeing and development afforded to those taking offence - that at the same time provide evidence that should rightfully dispel a person’s desire for a bubble-wrapped puritan society comprising of online platforms that are socially engineered to be ‘safe spaces’ -, to provide a final word on the matter of irrelevance of ‘offence-taking’ to the debate, I here quote the brilliant and articulate Stephen Fry: “‘I am offended by that’ Well, so fucking what”.

And, if the opinions expressed are so clearly hateful, regressive and extreme? Surely, then, its removal is warranted and it’s exponent worthy of a ban? I’d argue, emphatically, no. If there is no such thing as ‘speech without consequence’ (as is, obviously, the case, that it hardly needs saying), then let the consequences be public ridicule and condemnation. Additionally, in silencing an opinion and removing its exponent from the platform, you are pushing that person to the fringes of the social discussion. For better or worse, most of us exist in the public social spheres of Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Instagram today, and these platforms, up-until-now, have remained bastions of debate and rebellion. Just like a criminal placed into a prison system, pushing her to the fringes of society (exacerbated by her inability to vote and poor prospects for reintegration following release), ‘no-platforming’ pushes the individual to the fringes of the public social sphere and discussion. In the first instance, they’ll likely move to other platforms. In the second, these individuals, labelled as ‘outsiders’, will find new means of expressing their opinions and ideas, likely underground, in darker places, devoid of challenge and ridicule. Their ideas will be reinforced as they confine themselves to circles where their own ideology is shared by all inhabitants. Or, as is equally likely, they will seek to express their opinions and ideas through different public platforms. Tommy Robinson being the perfect example of someone who has been no-platformed from most social media sites (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat), but continues to be active in the public and political spheres. So, the very platform that would allow opponents and critiques of his ideologies has been removed? Keep him where the discussion resides, and afford him a path to redemption by challenging him and seeking to change his beliefs.

If the idea expressed has ‘truth-value’ to it then one’s advocacy of speaking freely weakens slightly. One does do not believe people should be able to ‘get away’ with presenting unfounded, false propositions as true and evidenced. Anti-vaxxers exemplify this position. However, one is aware of other means of countering the spread of falsities. To provide example, designing algorithms for YouTube that suggest a diversity of videos to watch, that provide some counter claim or argument (a suggestion I’ve heard proposed elsewhere), would surely reduce the spread of these deceptions without compromising our civil liberty of free expression? Take, for example, a viewer of anti-vaxxer content on YouTube: after watching the anti-vaxxer video, the ‘suggested videos’ that appear to the right-hand side of the screen should incorporate numerous videos featuring pro-vaccination content, ensuring that the viewer is exposed to a diverse range of perspectives. Of course, improving scientific and media literacy is another, more far-reaching, means to counter the spread of false propositions and arguments. Though, the majority of ‘no platforming’s’ that occur usually result from individuals with dissenting and contrary opinions, rather than unambiguously ‘false’ propositions, that can be located in the equivocal waters of political, social and philosophical debate.

Take, Meghan Murphy, the Canadian journalist and radical feminist. Among her ‘controversial’ opinions are her calling for the decriminalising of prostitution, her opposition to Bill C-16 – the bill that saw the encoding of gender identity and gender expression as protected characteristics in Canadian law –, her opposition to transgenderism, and relatedly, her use of ‘transphobic’ language. Murphy was initially suspended from Twitter in November last year for allegedly tweeting that “men aren’t women”, referring to her belief that transgender women are not women. A contentious opinion, sure, but one that exists in a relatively new area of popular and political discourse. Murphy was permanently suspended later that same month for allegedly deadnaming a transgender person, Jonathan Yaniv, as ‘he’ when Yaniv had transitioned into a woman. Twitter claimed that Murphy violated it’s ‘Hateful Conduct Policy’. Allegedly, the tweet was referring to an image of Yaniv, who was identifying using a male name. One is unclear of the exact details of the matter (unfortunately, it’s hard to sift through claims that are superficially plausible, but wrong nonetheless), but in any case, a life-time ban for mislabelling someone’s gender appears excessive, regardless of whether someone has taken offence, and once-again does not allow for dissenting opinion in a relatively new sphere of popular discussion.

Take another example: Milo Yiannopoulos, polemicist, public-speaker and former editor of Breitbart News. Yiannopoulos, among his numerous subjects of ridicule, has frequently criticised Islam, atheism, feminism and political correctness. Perhaps the label ‘provocateur for the sake of being a provocateur’ would encapsulate Milo’s career-to-date (with bedfellow Katie Hopkins sharing the same regrettable career choice). Yiannopoulos received a life-time Twitter ban in 2016 for allegedly ‘encouraging the abuse directed at Lesie Jones’. Not to hide my disdain for the figure, nor neglecting to accept that his rhetoric directed at Leslie Jones was in bad-taste and surely offensive to Jones (labelling her a “black dude” and “barely literate” as notable examples), he can not be held responsible for encouraging ‘abusive behaviour’ of others as Twitter and other media outlets claimed, as it is apparent that none of his Tweets directly and explicitly encouraged anything of the sort. As before, a contentious and deeply-offensive figure (to some), but silencing fails to provide satisfactory redress.

Yet, far more worrying is the recent purge undertaken by Facebook earlier this year, where numerous contentious public figures, including Yiannopoulos, as well as Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Louis Farrakhan, Laura Loomer and Paul Nehlen were all permanently banned from the platform after being labelled as ‘dangerous’. Not to dispute that some of their views are disgusting, divisive and likely perceived as offensive (to some), it ought to be patently obvious that removing someone from the conversation is not progressive to the rational and polite debate or conducive with changing their “dangerous” opinions. An insidious transition from the event-related banning’s of the past, to a bolder, final and unreserved labelling of these individuals, and their views, as incorrect. Take note, ‘dangerous’ is now synonymous with ‘dissenting’.

One’s refraining from using the ‘slippery slope’ argument on the basis that it’s cheap and tends not to pass muster is here rendered fallacious.

Most upsetting in all of this is the permanency of these bans. In most cases, certainly in the case of Facebook’s recent purge, they are life-time bans, and though the permanent nature of these bans has not yet been tested – given the infantile nature of these platforms (both in actual age and reflected in their infantile behaviour; ‘to throw one’s toys out of the pram’ seems an apt phrase to employ) - a life-time is considerably long. (A man would get a shorter sentence for bashing someones head in with a hammer.) It does not allow for the capacity of the individual to change and to seek redemption for his or her actions. We are not static, but we are in constant transition, changing views, opinions and behaviour as we are exposed to more knowledge, insight and contrary opinion. Ben Shapiro’s public and regularly-updated list of ‘all the dumb stuff’ he’s ever done is testament to the universal human capacity to make mistakes, but to seek redemption for them.

Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Patreon, Instagram and YouTube, in dictating what can and cannot be said have transitioned from ‘platforms for open discussion’ to ‘editorials’, and Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Jack Conte and Susan Wojicicki the new editors-in-chief. Given the number of users and their cross-cultural and cross-national reach, this transition is highly disturbing and we should all be wary of it.