I've avoided talking about it till now, because I firmly believe that as a Singaporean, it's not really my place to comment on USA politics. After all, I happen to find it extremely stupid and off-putting when non-citizens presume to tell Singaporeans what to think about Singapore's Government. Thus, I try not to do that. Until it begins affecting my industry. Then all bets are off.
The result of the fiasco where then-President Donald Trump was accused of inciting the mob to storm the Capitol, was that he was subsequently removed from Twitter and Facebook. Up to now, that "inciting" part is a bit of a mystery to me. I read a transcript of that speech and it just about put me to sleep.
 |
| Trump banned for egging people on? |
But anyway, back to Trump's removal from Social Media.
In related news, Social Media app Parler also had a rough time of it. Admittedly, I'd never heard of them until recently. Apparently, they were the destination and gathering point for all the extremist Right-wing groups, and their numbers surged when Twitter and Facebook began to purge those from their platform. Despite calls do do so, Parler refused to do likewise and purge these groups, citing Freedom of Speech or somesuch. However, this was soon brought to an end when Apple and Google removed the app from their respective platforms so that no one could install the app from those platforms. And then the nail in the proverbial coffin was introduced when Amazon, Parler's hosting provider at that time, withdrew their services citing Parler's refusal to remove content that incited violence.
In effect, both Donald Trump and the extreme faction of Right-wingers were pretty much cut off from Social Media. True, there was still e-mail and internet, but they no longer had a voice. Or, at least, they no longer had a platform from which they could spread their message.
Tech platforms taking sides?
It didn't take long for Left-wingers (and Trump-haters in general) to gloat that tech appeared to have finally chosen to side with them. Or their counterparts, the Right-wingers, to decry big tech for exactly the same thing. And indeed, it did appear that Twitter, Facebook, even Pinterest, had dropped all pretense of impartiality and done what they've been dying to do all along - embrace their Leftist base. |
| Taking sides. |
I think these deluded children have forgotten one fact. These are tech businesses. They're not interested in your politics beyond what they can do to make money out of it. Nor should they ever be. Alienating roughly half your user base in order to pander to the dramatics of the other half, is a poor business decision.
There have been cries as to how tech is practicing censorship and stifling the oh-so-important Freedom of Speech. With all due respect, Freedom of Speech refers to Government action. These are private entities. As such, Twitter, Facebook and Amazon, among others, were perfectly within their rights - whether legally or ethically. Also, Donald Trump didn't leave Twitter and Facebook much choice in the matter here. Trump's speech, as insignificant as it may have been to me personally, undeniably meant something else to his base. And allowing him to keep stoking the fire in light of what happened at the Capitol, would have been highly irresponsible. So no, I don't think what they did was wrong. But it does raise some troubling questions.
Who to entrust with that kind of power?
Trevor Noah, one of my favorite comedians, has openly criticized big tech in the clip below. No, not for doing what they did, but for doing it too late.What he said stood out to me, and as much as I enjoy watching him, it wasn't entirely in a good way.
"I think it's really funny how Social Media companies say they don't have a magic button to stop hate online, but then when Trump lost, suddenly they were like, oh we do have that button, here it is! So what - now these companies want a cookie for doing the right thing too late?"
On one hand, the dude has a point. Things should never have gotten as far as they did. And the fact that these companies seemingly waited till Donald Trump was soon to be no longer President, to act, does look an awful lot like cowardice.
On the other hand, what constitutes the right thing? Some might say - supporting causes that should be supported, and not tolerating causes that don't deserve your support. But who gets to decide that? These things are highly subjective. Do we really want Apple to decide which apps can or can't be online? Do we really want, say, Twitter, deciding what people can and can't read in public discourse? Sure, Trump-haters might be all for it now, but forget Trump. Look beyond petty grievances, and you'll realize how scary this is if big tech can be politicized to this extent.
Already, we have articles like these claiming that the Capitol riots should not be confused with the violence of Black Lives Matter or the HongKong protests that took up much of 2019. That's a matter of perspective, and highly subjective. What is an objective fact, is that laws were broken and public property was damaged, and lives were lost. Tech companies can, of course, be trusted to make decisions according to objective fact. It's when they are called upon to make subjective moral value judgements on behalf of their very diverse user base, that we might want to start worrying. What if Amazon one day decides that they don't want you to exist online? If you can't go to Amazon to host your app, where else could you go that has the same reach? If you can't build a Social Media presence on Facebook or Twitter, could you simply go elsewhere? Technically, you could, but options are slim to none.
Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, et al, cannot and should not be faulted for having the huge user base they have today. But the fact remains that the recent banning of Trump and the deplatforming of Parler has laid bare the scary amount of power they do hold. It's a mind-boggling amount of power to have, and nobody wants that responsibility. Remember the case of Matthew Prince and The Daily Stormers roughly three years ago? Back then, Prince said something similar to what Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, is saying today - no one should have that kind of power, and decisions like these set a dangerous precedent. Already, Twitter has the nigh-impossible task of enforcing its own rules consistently. Is it fair to expect them - or anyone, for that matter - to be the Moral Police? Sure, last week it was Donald Trump that got the short end of the stick. Who cares? He deserved it, right? But see... what happens when the big tech companies decide someone else deserves it? Someone you actually like? One day, it's the President of the USA, albeit an outgoing one. What's to stop these big tech companies from denying service to, say, Singapore? What if for some reason or other, Facebook suddenly decides that Singaporeans don't deserve Social Media?
Finally...
Some will tell you that these tech companies are private entities, and they can conduct business as they see fit. They aren't obliged to be consistent, or owe anyone any explanation regarding their decisions. And they certainly don't owe anyone a platform.I'm not disputing any of that; it's all absolutely true.
But bear this in mind - business relationships are built on trust. If a company cannot be trusted to be transparent and act with some logical consistency, and instead is seen making arbitrary decisions based on internal or external pressures, that's bad for business. Something I suspect these companies are all too aware of.
Beware that slippery slope,
T___T
T___T
No comments:
Post a Comment