Free speech and tech giants

[DonkeySkin]

Thread to discuss the implications of public discourse being controlled by a handful of private companies in the US, and what (if any) remedies are available.

This issue concerns everyone, obviously, but has particular implications for women, given the dominance of men in tech.

Tech companies are the new seat of world power and they are overwhelmingly male. While women have been diligently working towards getting equal representation in government, men have been building a 'Brotopia' in Silicon Valley.

The term 'Brotopia', should not be regarded flippantly. It is a quite literal description of a society designed solely according to (mostly young) male preferences. Previously such men would have had to negotiate with young female preferences, the controlling hand of older men and, particularly, the wisdom of older women. Read Emily Chang's research on what happens to social norms when young (or youngish) men don't have to cleave to traditional strictures designed to curb the extremes of male behaviour:

www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/brotopia-silicon-valley-secretive-orgiastic-inner-sanctum

The creation of a Brotopia doesn't even have to be deliberate. It's purely a numbers game. Men gravitate to tech in much greater numbers than women, hence the priorities of tech will reflect the priorities of those men (many of whom have ASD traits). The result is that we are heading towards a society almost totally devoid of the wisdom of grandmothers. AFAIK that has never happened before in human history.

That might seem tangential to the issue of free speech on the internet, but I think it is connected, in the sense that if speech is seen to threaten men's sexual freedoms (to mimic women for pleasure, or to access the desired number and variety of women, or to sexualise children), then that speech will be shut down. As we are seeing currently, with reddit shuttering r/gendercritical while leaving up subs dedicated to documenting and eroticising rape and female sexual trauma for male pleasure.

People who say 'How can women talking critically about gender be 'hate speech', while rape pornography is not?' are missing the point. 'Hate speech' is the pretext for what is really the assertion of male sexual freedom as the supreme value: rape porn is obviously protected under such a rubric, while women talking about paraphilias and child protection is a threat, so reddit's logic is entirely consistent.

I don't discount the impact of other factors here, not least of which is the wholesale abandonment of enlightenment values on the left, and the widespread mob madness induced by social media, which seems designed to cultivate our worst instincts.

I just wonder what we are going to do about it. It feels like everything is rapidly intensifying. New and creative thinking on the part of feminists is required.

[PapsofJura]

I did a google search (the irony after reading the other thread on them) as per bovaryx suggested. Scary.

[Kettlingur]

This is a v v important issue to discuss. My fear is that people are not aware of it - and how could they be, given that they get their information from the same channels that are controlled by the tech bros. Discussion is becoming more and more stifled when certain topics (those deemed uncomfortable or threatening to male sexual wants) are banned, but that is not the only way to steer speech and thought.

One day I was thinking, isn't it strange how liberal feminists now view prostitution? That sex is just another commodity to be sold, and that it is "empowering" and "freeing" to do sex work (even though the HUGE majority of sex workers are trafficked and/or abused). I'm pretty sure this change of opinion was spoon fed by a loud contingent of social media users, mostly males of course, who promoted the happy hooker myth and celebrated women's right to "choose" selling sex. I'm not saying that this is a big conspiracy. I'm saying, if a large majority of social media users are males, many of them sexually frustrated incel types, their views are promoted and published more. And slowly their thoughts become "what the people are now thinking about this." This issue, naturally, is just one example.

Thanks for starting this discussion.

[KayakingOnDown]

@KaronAVyrus

Very interesting. I’ve long been concerned about just how powerful these companies are (and not just from a deee speech angle) but their insane wealth and influence is very worrying.

Me too. I've also been concerned about their power and virtual monopoly on public discourse.

Politicians and democratic institutions seem weak and fragile in comparison.

[Broomfondle]

@Tigerty

I posted about the FB advertising as it made my Spidey senses tingle

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3951484-Facebook-advertising-rules

It appears it's trying to stop adverts which class certain groups as a threat. Religion is one of the protected characteristics (if you will). I wondered if this would effect charity adverts raising funds for one religious group fleeing persecution from another for example. It's not acceptable to characterise groups of people as a threat if they aren't...but what if they are?!

[ShinyFootball]

This is a fascinating thread thank you everyone who has posted.

[WooblyBoobly]

This thread is touching all my panic buttons, all the things I worry about. Money/tech controls speech therefore thought. Journalism is a lost profession with most of them in a ditch somewhere humming to themselves. The people who used to use their knowledge/wits to fully understand events and the news and inform their readers, are just fiddling about on Twitter and regurgitating what they see there. It isn't just that if we don't sort this out, women's rights are fucked. If this does not get sorted out, everything is fucked. Critical Theory 101-- the end of the world as we know it.

[BovaryX]

The demonetisation of YouTube videos is now pretty commonplace, but only occurs to channels that are considered ‘socially conservative’ and never those on the far left. Demonetisation of entire channels is now routine (Tim Pool for example). There are conservatives in the USA who have had not only their Patreon accounts but also their bank and Paypal accounts closed due to their problematic views expressed on YouTube/Twitter. The bans from the platforms were quickly followed by the closing of Paypal accounts

TheRealMcKenna

All of this is extremely worrying. As is the number of people who agree with #no platforming. The power of the tech barons is an existential threat to freedom of speech.

[SetYourselfOnFire]

Feminists are going to have to own their own platforms. I don't trust anyone to do it for us.

[BovaryX]

DisappearingGirl - ref the recent article in the Telegraph on Glinner, quoting one very unrepresentative post on MN - an anonymous internet forum. This is how absolutely anyone can post absolutely anything and manufacture what passes for 'news'. It's bullshit, of course, but it provides enough hot air to power public opinion

Absolutely agree. That article totally misrepresented the response of this forum and most people reading it won't realise that it is fake news. The level of editing, misrepresentation or simply refusing to print 'problematic' news is off the charts. The BBC actually edited a plank wielding guy out of a picture and were only forced to acknowledge this because the original was put online. The state of news reporting is abysmal.

[ScrimpshawTheSecond]

Agree we need to move offline, or at least into spaces where we can avoid the kind of sinister machinations of google/twitter/reddit etc.

Feels almost impossible. I wonder how to start?

DisappearingGirl - ref the recent article in the Telegraph on Glinner, quoting one very unrepresentative post on MN - an anonymous internet forum. This is how absolutely anyone can post absolutely anything and manufacture what passes for 'news'. It's bullshit, of course, but it provides enough hot air to power public opinion.

[howonearthdidwegethere]

The decline of the mainstream media scares me shitless.

I think the UK is in a better position than the US but still.

Good journalism costs and the financial model has been screwed by the tech giants.

No-one under 30 buys a newspaper.

People need to wake up. An independent press is the cornerstone in a liberal democracy.

[DisappearingGirl]

What's scary too is that newspapers are starting to just parrot what's been said on social media, giving it even more power. Rather than critically reporting on actual facts (or, if they are going to report opinion, asking an actual expert).

E.g. "JKR said some things on Twitter and then X, Y and Z said they were transphobic". Headline becomes: "JKR under fire for transphobic tweets" (or similar). So suddenly, because some people said it was true on Twitter, it is true.

[Tigerty]

Coincidentally I read this thread while watching the news. I saw that a lot of companies are withdrawing advertising from Facebook because they’re not happy with hate speech and misinformation on the site.

I recognised a few of those companies are woke bro companies so I had a look into their statement.

www.stophateforprofit.org/productrecommendations

Coca Cola, Starbucks, Ben & Jerry’s and a host of other companies want Facebook to
“Submit to regular, third party, independent audits of identity-based hate and misinformation with summary results published on a publicly accessible website.”

Identity based hate is mentioned a couple of times. I’ve been long enough around the feminist boards now and I do wonder the core woke bro companies have a hidden agenda to try to suppress women talking about women’s rights on Facebook by labelling them and their posts hate speech.

Facebook have responded with a “piss off” statement that is they’ve already put things in place to flag hate speech. But you’re right OP the power of free speech rests with a handful of private companies and ultimately who leads these companies.

Should Facebook cave into this pressure it could mean that posts stating eg “sex is biological” or “transwomen are men” are classed as hate speech. Next step would then be to criminalise this and viola patriarchal censorship.

It’s all conjecture of course but given we know there’s wealth behind some of the TRA legal/policy/academic strategies I wonder if it’s hidden here too.

[TheRealMcKenna]

Yes, OP, this issue terrifies me. These tech companies have more power - FAR more power - than many govts.

People should be terrified, but this goes way beyond Twitter bans.

The demonetisation of YouTube videos is now pretty commonplace, but only occurs to channels that are considered ‘socially conservative’ and never those on the far left. Demonetisation of entire channels is now routine (Tim Pool for example). There are conservatives in the USA who have had not only their Patreon accounts but also their bank and Paypal accounts closed due to their problematic views expressed on YouTube/Twitter. The bans from the platforms were quickly followed by the closing of Paypal accounts. This is now into the realms of Social Credit scores in China.

No one really cared- why should they, these people were Trump supporters and had ‘deplorable’ views didn’t they?

What happens when that ‘Beyond the Pale’ idea is expressing the view that biological sex is real? There is no coincidence whatsoever that BTLM has been so quickly made an integral part of BLM. There is a ‘golden opportunity’ to push the agenda at light speed in order to ensure GC women are shoved firmly into the realms of fascist. There is no coincidence that ‘liberal white women’ are considered the worst offenders in propping up white supremacy - more so even than openly racist white men. Bret Weinstein notes that the three most vocal activists during the Evergreen incident were black trans women.

I don’t know how it gets better from here.

[Bluebooby]

@ScrimpshawTheSecond

the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority

Is that - does that mean women? Is that reddit specifically declaring that it doesn't give a fuck about women?

I'm guessing they also mean anyone they consider conservative or anyone they believe to have an opinion that they consider conservative, possibly members of some religions, possibly also "non-straight cisgender people". Probably whoever they want it to mean at any given time, subject to change.

[howonearthdidwegethere]

Thanks for pointing me towards that Emily Chang piece, even if reading it did make me feel ill.

Liberal democracies certainly need to wise up and find ways to regulate big tech. Google interfering in our democracy especially when they do their utmost to avoid paying tax gives me the chills.

But also agree with Charlie: organise offline. It's so different. Meghan Murphy said this when she was in the UK last year: we have become too dependent on social media platforms.

Look what we have achieved organising against self-ID. It can be done. We are the ones who walk into polling booths every few years. Chase your MPs, MSPs, AMs, councillors - they are accountable to YOU.

[MoltenLasagne]

Silicon valley is dominated by a specific, narrow, political dogma. Tech is not neutral. Its moderators are not neutral.

Silicon Valley is not only overwhelmingly male, it is also exceedingly rich to the extent that it has caused significant issues for San Francisco. The employees in SV consider themselves progressive on social issues but are very much libertarian on economic issues and want to keep hold of their wealth.

A concentration of wealth and power in those who consider themselves the only ones morally righteous enough to decide the acceptable parameters of discussion? I feel like its a repeat of all those dystopian YA novels.

[ScrimpshawTheSecond]

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

I agree with Karon. Google should be told firmly to butt out by the British government, as they have no business trying to influence British politics.

I am absolutely horrified by this! Has a tech company with the incredible power that Google wields tried before to intervene in UK legal process and law-making?

[Goosefoot]

Advertising is basically propaganda. The fact that we just regard it as natural, creating desire for things people don't need as natural, means our ability to discern is warped.

It's only because we also accept the need for constant economic growth which is a necessary condition of capitalism, that it seems like it's a natural part of an economic system.

[ScrimpshawTheSecond]

the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority

Is that - does that mean women? Is that reddit specifically declaring that it doesn't give a fuck about women?

[Broomfondle]

In the US in 2009 256 billion dollars was spent on advertising, which is higher than 80% of GDP's of all countries in the world.

[youkiddingme]

This is stagerring.

[TheTrickyWitch]

I agree with previous posters that resolving this issue is probably modern societies greatest challenge.

I simply don't think we understand the value of free speech adequately now. We have been a pampered couple of generations in much of the West. Memories of totalitarianism have faded and people have forgotten that the totalitarians don't all look like Darth Vader, often use the language of the left and convinced they are the good guys.

The intersection between women's and trans rights has been the first time I have found my own views outside the Liberal mainstream. I simply didn't value free speech enough when I agreed with all the 'acceptable' views. When your own rational and compassionately held views can be labelled hate speech it concentrates the mind.

So free speech for all on the Internet? But again, it isn't that simple. What about pro Ana and pro self harm websites? Fake news about vaccines? A line has to be drawn somewhere but who has the power to decide where and impose that on the whole world?

Sorry, hope that wasn't too tangential to the original post. Certainly agree, at the moment all the lines are being drawn badly by the young men running these tech companies.

[ScrimpshawTheSecond]

Ordering 'the madness of crowds' now, thanks for the reminder, been meaning to read for ages.

Yes, OP, this issue terrifies me. These tech companies have more power - FAR more power - than many govts.

[Goosefoot]

Isn't a lot of this parallel to issues around ownership of traditional media? As soon as it became clear that the internet was going to be one of the man conduits of information laws that apply to other sources of media should have begun to be applied. Mind you, many of those regulations and practices have also been degraded in recent years.

I thin many people were fooled by this idea that the internet would create a new age of freedom of expression, the democratisation of news. I remember during the Arab Spring, people were lapping that crap up like crazy.

It was always pie in the sky, even early in the days of the internet really smart people were predicting what would happen, what we are seeing now. It's interesting as someone who has worked in military settings, infrastructure like this is always a benefit to those already in power, and is a means to control others. You have a GPS and that means you can go anywhere? Great, until you realise that you have zero power over the satellites beaming you the information which could easily be stopped, and maybe even worse no way even to tell if its correct or about to send you off a cliff. Oops, maybe you should have saved a paper map and learned to read it.

Anyway, I am getting off on a tangent, but I think the path in some ways is what it has always been. Laws around monopolies, making sure corporations can't get so big their revenues dwarf those of small countries, decentralisation and public control of infrastructure. And if you want to be really radical and grass roots, building networks that don't require hosting on a server that someone else controls.