By Christine
Rosen
Monday, October
18, 2021
Frances Haugen, a former product manager
at Facebook, testified before Congress in early October about the dastardly
doings of her erstwhile employer. She outlined the ways Instagram, which is
owned by Facebook, has had negative effects on the emotional lives of American
teenagers and noted that Facebook is conscious of how it fuels anger and
misinformation online.
Haugen had also leaked internal Facebook
documents to the Wall Street Journal, which published a series of
stories about the company’s alleged knowledge of the harmfulness of its
products. Facebook’s own engineers were aware that “misinformation, toxicity
and violent content are inordinately prevalent among reshares,” the Journal reported.
Haugen called on Congress to do more to stop Facebook, stating, “My fear is that
without action, divisive and extremist behaviors we see today are only the
beginning.”
There is plenty of room for discussion of
how best to regulate Big Tech companies such as Facebook (which also owns
WhatsApp, Messenger, and Instagram). But the relatively newfound disdain on the
part of Democrats and the mainstream media when it comes to Facebook’s impact
on democracy might not be as civic-minded as their rhetoric suggests.
As a rule, Democrats are always
enthusiastic about increasing the power of the regulatory state, particularly,
as now, when they control two of the three branches of government. Until
recently, however, enough members of their coalition cared about free speech
and free expression that sweeping efforts to censor speech were rarely included
in their government “reforms.”
Our recent Great Awokening, with its
insistence that speech is violence, and that harmful words posted on Twitter or
your company’s Slack channel are equivalent to physical assault, has upended
that calculation. The mainstream media, which, since the Trump years, have
urged the public to assess the integrity of stories not by the evidence or
absence of facts in them but by the partisan leanings of those who embrace
them, are a major cultural force promoting this reassessment of speech.
Democrats have also proven to be amenable to this more restrictive redefinition
when it suits them.
Democrats were perfectly happy with
Facebook’s heavy-handed interventions when, for example, the company announced
earlier this year that it would be “expanding our efforts to remove false
claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines
in general during the pandemic,” including any claims that “COVID-19 is
man-made or manufactured.” This was done to suppress efforts to explore the
possibility that the virus might have accidentally escaped from a laboratory in
China, because Democrats and their allies in the media and the Biden
administration believed that to be little more than a right-wing conspiracy theory.
Tech platforms’ suppression of the New York Post’s stories about
Joe Biden’s son Hunter and his laptop computers followed a similar logic.
By May, however, Facebook reversed itself
on the lab-leak story—not because the evidence of such a leak had changed, but
because mainstream-media opinion about it had shifted to allow for the
possibility that such a leak might have occurred, and because the Biden
administration was now raising it as a possibility. As the Wall Street
Journal’s editorial board noted at the time, “as long as Democratic opinion
sneered at the lab-leak theory, Facebook dutifully controlled it.” But when the
evidence became too compelling to ignore, “Facebook acted in lockstep with the
government.”
It’s also difficult to take at face value
Democrats’ current complaints about Facebook’s impact on elections and
democracy. Their sudden change of heart came only after Donald Trump won the
2016 election. It was completely absent when Barack Obama successfully used the
platform (and user data) to win election and reelection; indeed, the use of
Facebook algorithms was portrayed in hundreds of stories as a political
masterstroke. Hillary Clinton’s stated problem with Facebook also came only
after her defeat; Clinton, who received a $20 million campaign donation from
Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, now calls Mark Zuckerberg “authoritarian”
and “Trumpian.”
Despite the recent harrumphing from
Democrats, and Biden’s appointment of a few antitrust advocates in key
positions, Big Tech remains firmly ensconced in the Democratic coalition. As
the Wall Street Journal reported earlier in the year,
employees of Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, and
Facebook “were the five largest sources of money for Mr. Biden’s campaign and
joint fundraising committees among those identifying corporate employers.”
As well, mainstream media outlets are
hardly capable of acting as objective reporters on the goings-on at Big Tech
platforms. They are direct competitors with them for the only commodity that
matters in the information economy: the attention of users. In some cases, such
as that of the Washington Post, which is owned by Amazon founder
Jeff Bezos, they both report on and are owned by competing technology
companies.
Legacy media’s loss of readers to digital
platforms is an old story, but these negative revelations about Facebook give
it a new twist. They and their Democratic allies might rail against the
platforms themselves, but if you look closely at the solutions they are
proposing, it’s clear they sense an opportunity to bend the platforms further
to their political will, rather than destroy them.
If Democrats can regulate the ability of
tech platforms to suppress speech and expression deemed to be misinformation,
then right-of-center ideas that are plausible but not popular among the Big
Tech/mainstream-media/Democratic Party elite can nevertheless be actively suppressed.
This would never be viewed as censorship, of course, but rather would be touted
with the kind of bureaucratic doublespeak Facebook used when banning the
lab-leak stories—as the removal of “false claims” and “misinformation” to
promote a healthy information ecosystem.
One need not love Facebook or other Big
Tech platforms to see the potential harm: Pressured by Congress and threatened
with further regulation, Facebook and other platforms could invoke
ever-shifting definitions of danger to limit the reach of views that the left
dislikes.
In July, as part of a series on
“Untangling Disinformation,” National Public Radio devoted a lengthy segment to
Ben Shapiro and his Daily Wire. NPR noted that, on Facebook, Shapiro vastly
outperforms legacy-media outlets such as the Washington Post and
couldn’t resist deriding the stories on his site as mere “conservative
clickbait.”
NPR had to concede that “articles The
Daily Wire publishes don’t normally include falsehoods,” but it cited experts
who tut-tutted that the site didn’t provide enough “context” for readers. But
the crux of NPR’s dislike of Shapiro could be found in this telling sentence:
“There has been no indication that Facebook views The Daily Wire’s engagement
success to be a problem.”
The mainstream media and its Democratic
allies clearly do. According to this new line of reasoning, those terrible
people who enjoy hot takes from Ben Shapiro are no longer merely the political
opposition. They are undermining democracy, and, by implication, their right to
free expression should be interfered with. Washington Post columnist
Margaret Sullivan, who once ran a newsroom in Buffalo, recently argued with a
straight face that “a problem that threatens the underpinnings of our civil
society calls for a radical solution: A new federal agency focused on the
digital economy.”
This astounding call should be considered
in light of recent efforts to suppress speech and impose wokeness. Anti-racism
profiteer Ibram X. Kendi has called for passage of a constitutional amendment
that would establish a Department of Anti-Racism. It would “be responsible for
preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t
yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist
policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for
expressions of racist ideas” and “be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield
over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily
change their racist policy and ideas,” as he wrote in Politico.
Our use of Facebook and other Big Tech
platforms clearly does cause real harm, both at an individual and social level.
But it also offers a tantalizing amount of power to the political faction that
can figure out how to use these platforms to muzzle their political opponents.
Right now, that power rests in the hands of the Democratic Party—and they love
nothing more than using governmental power.
No comments:
Post a Comment