Mis- and Dis- Information From Online Platforms

Mis- and Dis- information from online platforms is something online platforms like to tell us we should be concerned about so we know that they're concerned about it (otherwise they wouldn’t be bringing it up) so they can then talk about how much they care about curating spaces. Like FB and Twitter self-reported that, “Between 2018 and 2020 they had taken down 147 influence operations in total according to this Brookings article “How disinformation evolved in 2020” by Josh A. Goldstein and Shelby Grossman. Some of the points that stuck out to me the most were how removals are increasingly tied to one actor as Brookings, “Based on our coding, approximately 76% of takedowns were attributed to a specific actor in 2020, compared to 62% in 2019 and 47% in 2018.” If posts taken down are consolidated to a single actor I feel like there must be more actors that they are missing with their current systems, procedures, and analyses. The points Goldstein and Grossman make later in their analysis when talking about specifically target countries and the number of posts taken down are that it’s just Facebook and Twitter and no other platforms like Parler, and it’s only on what they’ve flagged and removed. With the vastness of the internet, the proliferation of hate-driven motives, acceptance of abuse, exploitation, and second-class citizening, I can’t imagine there being fewer sources for misdirected anger and violence. At least Fox News has had the wherewithal to finally stop promoting the “White Replacement” life-taking ignorance with the last racist mass shooter, that sentiment isn’t new or disappearing when it’s so easy to blame the other, especially when they’ve less privilege or power. Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson successfully defends himself in court from a defamation suit, “Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously”.

Worse, they present “Free Speech” as a possible reason the US and UK were found to have more instances while no other nation that values free speech is up there. The thing I find that links those is a history of imperialism and colonization structured on the bodies of Black, Brown, and poor folks by leveraging images and ideas of material largess attainability, and have structured their societies on an idea of, “Well at least I’m better off than that person.” Through focusing on individualism and othering to keep extracting our labor, they’ve created isolationist societies ingrained with racism, sexism, and classism.

Seeing how Muslims are being treated and targeted and propagandized in India as the first suggested article for this assignment reports on where Facebook is the internet provider in India, or how the Myanmar Government and Military are portraying, treating, and targeting Rohingya. With the incitement, violence, and sedition on January 6th in our Nation’s Capital, or Y’all Queda attempting to occupy our capital building in Salem, the evidence is stacking up. 

As Tristan Harris, of The Center for Humane Technology, talks about in this week’s material, "To create humane technology we need to think deeply about human nature, and that means more than just talking about privacy. This is a profound spiritual moment. We need to understand our natural strengths — our capacity for self-awareness and critical thinking, for reasoned debate and reflection — as well as our weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and the parts of ourselves that we’ve lost control over. The only way to make peace with technology is to make peace with ourselves." This is the crux of curating the practically infinite virtual space the internet can provide to allow for the exchange of ideas and concepts-and cat pics-across physical, societal, linguistic, or geographical boundaries with the entire extent of our specie's documented knowledge.  

“Censorship is a *slap* in the face of freedom!” is a legitimate argument, especially when the most obvious idea of publicly choosing folks through an election seems like it would be the most democratic, government censorship is not a door to open, and we should never let it be as a free press is one of the most important pieces for people to hold policies and politicians accountable. But even as Zuckerberg requested government guidance in 2010 as he testified before congress about removing hate speech, FB didn’t do anything until 2016 when the EU Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online(EU COC: CIHSO was adopted– and this wasn’t even censorship. The EU COC: CIHSO just stated that companies needed to have a policy in place, of their own creation, to moderate and remove illegal hate speech that they would abide by. The EU didn’t force guidance or regulations since there’s a clear history and precedent of what speech is not protected because it infringes on the rights of others. 

One place I feel we can do better is by repealing section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996. As the internet was starting to grow and media was generated primarily peer-to-peer, there was an outcry that kids could suddenly access pornography simply unheard of before the internet *scoffs*. To do this, the Federal Government decided to amend the Telecommunications Act of 1934 to protect hosts and providers from the empty moral, but untaxed and incredibly well funded, outrage and bluster that was threatening to sue-- and elections were coming up. Section 230 said that they were not liable for the harms that people who they were not associated with uploaded unlike the other forms of media the government had already regulated, as they did with the Communications Act of 1934. This would fit many of the ethical models presented as it would cause the least harm and do the best by letting folks share unmitigated, respect the rights of those that are sharing by not censoring it, be as Just and Equitable as our legal system can be expected to be, and would support the common good by keeping space for those most disenfranchised. 

As the internet, and its users, have been commodified and content is pushed solely for profit by these platforms as any social good they purport is contradicted by their Machiavellian actions, repealing section 230 for platforms that commodify the content they host, share, and promote, seems an obvious and effective answer. If FB and Twitter and YouTube can be held liable for the damages the Mis- and Dis- information causes they’d have gotten get serious about finding out how to stop it back in 2010 instead of figuring out how to mine more data and consolidate more power. 

Josh A. Goldstein and Shelby Grossman, “How disinformation evolved in 2020”, Brookings Institution, 4/1/2020, https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-disinformation-evolved-in-2020/, Accessed 20/10/202