We have already speculated that Facebook's bid to maintain a global product would lead to a pervasive censorship regime, where the "greatest common denominator" of what is tolerated around the world would be the final product, resulting in only a tiny box of permitted speech.
But here is an interesting twist: because Facebook opted to integrate the Western lib-left doctrinal boundaries of acceptability (SJW doctrine) into that model instead of the West's free speech tradition, it seems people of foreign cultures, religions and movements that are wildly popular outside of the West's tiny population of several hundred million are going to be e-guillotined for what they say about gender roles, sexuality, religion or other states.
To see how this can work in real life, France just passed a law equating anti-Zionism (i.e. opposition to Israel) with anti-Semitism, which can be punished like any other crime; assuming Facebook incorporates France's policy into a global product and holds everyone to that policy, most of the Middle East except - except Israel - is likely to be banned from Facebook. Hell, maybe even Haaretz (a left-wing Jewish news source that is historically critical of Zionism) will be banned as well.
Get your popcorn ready! 🍿
For now, though, Facebook is only butting heads with Islamists who follow Ayatollah Khamenei.
Press TV:
And yes, there is "political bias" in Facebook's censorship agenda.
Obviously.
Because, while the "greatest common denominator" theory suggests that a company hoping to sell one product around the world will work towards a global, popular consensus on what is acceptable, at some point, somebody's opinion on what is not "ok conversation" going to be overlooked, or soon there will be nothing left for anybody to talk about. The thing is, just look at what Facebook is tolerating: the male-hating, the Russia-baiting and the white-blaming in post after Facebook post. And what about the Islamists who believe homosexuality is a sin, and gender roles and customs that protect them are a big deal? Facebook did not give a damn about their feelings. In fact, their opinions are outlawed.
But the story gets even more interesting:
That language sounds familiar, doesn't it?
I think one of the most interesting twists of the 21st century is this idea that a bot is something other than just another mouthpiece that could give out "bad information" just as any other source could and, therefore, has to be stopped.
True, with bots, the non-applicability of a liability scene is problematic if a bot operator cannot be found; using a bot could be a loophole to influence discourse while avoiding liability for things like slander, libel or threats. And yes, bots can help articles and opinions go viral, inflate readership and give way to the understanding that more people have a passion and feel a certain way about a topic than is really the case.
But is objection to bots really about liability? And what is the big deal with mass circulation and inflated readership when, at least as we were raised to believe, having things out for debate is supposed to be valued? Stronger arguments were supposed to triumph over weaker ones, so there was no need for anything to be hidden. Likewise, we were supposed to have faith in the public's rationality. Or so it was.
The new guiding principle seems to be that rational thought, arguments and facts are a hassle to integrate into an argument; after all, why compete to out rationalize or out-fact information you do not like, to which your argument may fail, when the information you are challenging can be undermined just by calling it bot/terrorist/spam/trolling material? Sensationalism and emotional manipulation have triumphed. It is time to face the music: the Enlightenment is dead. And those who claimed to be fighting its opponents killed it, and did so largely out of fear.
But here is an interesting twist: because Facebook opted to integrate the Western lib-left doctrinal boundaries of acceptability (SJW doctrine) into that model instead of the West's free speech tradition, it seems people of foreign cultures, religions and movements that are wildly popular outside of the West's tiny population of several hundred million are going to be e-guillotined for what they say about gender roles, sexuality, religion or other states.
To see how this can work in real life, France just passed a law equating anti-Zionism (i.e. opposition to Israel) with anti-Semitism, which can be punished like any other crime; assuming Facebook incorporates France's policy into a global product and holds everyone to that policy, most of the Middle East except - except Israel - is likely to be banned from Facebook. Hell, maybe even Haaretz (a left-wing Jewish news source that is historically critical of Zionism) will be banned as well.
Get your popcorn ready! 🍿
For now, though, Facebook is only butting heads with Islamists who follow Ayatollah Khamenei.
Press TV:
US-based social media company Facebook has reportedly closed the Arabic-language page of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. According to Iranian media reports on Friday, the page was closed after being recently put under restrictions by Facebook on the alleged pretext of violating the site’s terms of service.
The page, which published speeches and other news related to the Leader, had more than 100,000 followers. Social media pages belonging to the Leader have on numerous occasions been targeted with restrictions and page bans across different platforms, including Twitter and Instagram.
Following the recent closure of the Leader’s Arabic Facebook page, an alternative Arabic-language page affiliated to the Leader was reported to have replaced the previous page. The recent closure comes as many observers and activists have criticized Facebook for what they regard as the social media giant’s political bias in dealing with online activity.
And yes, there is "political bias" in Facebook's censorship agenda.
Obviously.
Because, while the "greatest common denominator" theory suggests that a company hoping to sell one product around the world will work towards a global, popular consensus on what is acceptable, at some point, somebody's opinion on what is not "ok conversation" going to be overlooked, or soon there will be nothing left for anybody to talk about. The thing is, just look at what Facebook is tolerating: the male-hating, the Russia-baiting and the white-blaming in post after Facebook post. And what about the Islamists who believe homosexuality is a sin, and gender roles and customs that protect them are a big deal? Facebook did not give a damn about their feelings. In fact, their opinions are outlawed.
But the story gets even more interesting:
"Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif slammed Twitter for banning “real Iranians” from the social media platform while ignoring anti-Iranian content multiplied by bots operated by known US-backed terrorists."
That language sounds familiar, doesn't it?
I think one of the most interesting twists of the 21st century is this idea that a bot is something other than just another mouthpiece that could give out "bad information" just as any other source could and, therefore, has to be stopped.
True, with bots, the non-applicability of a liability scene is problematic if a bot operator cannot be found; using a bot could be a loophole to influence discourse while avoiding liability for things like slander, libel or threats. And yes, bots can help articles and opinions go viral, inflate readership and give way to the understanding that more people have a passion and feel a certain way about a topic than is really the case.
But is objection to bots really about liability? And what is the big deal with mass circulation and inflated readership when, at least as we were raised to believe, having things out for debate is supposed to be valued? Stronger arguments were supposed to triumph over weaker ones, so there was no need for anything to be hidden. Likewise, we were supposed to have faith in the public's rationality. Or so it was.
The new guiding principle seems to be that rational thought, arguments and facts are a hassle to integrate into an argument; after all, why compete to out rationalize or out-fact information you do not like, to which your argument may fail, when the information you are challenging can be undermined just by calling it bot/terrorist/spam/trolling material? Sensationalism and emotional manipulation have triumphed. It is time to face the music: the Enlightenment is dead. And those who claimed to be fighting its opponents killed it, and did so largely out of fear.
