The paradox of free speech and censorship

benfell

See updates through May 5, 2021, at end of post.

I left the now largely-defunct Google Plus social network when it censored me for opposing rape.

Yes, it really did.

Why? Because I had used the word, ‘rape,’ which Google’s artificial idiocy bots treated as threatening speech even when anyone reading my post would clearly have seen that I was writing in opposition to rape.

Censorship is a problem. But let us consider the unfettered alternative, unlimited free speech.

If I were the opposite of how I see myself, if, in fact, Google Plus had been correct to censor my post, that post might have been an attempt to silence opposition, whether political or of any other sort.

“Free” speech isn’t really free. As always with that word, one must ask, “free” for whom? To do what? To whom?

So I am presented with two binary opposite answers, neither of them satisfactory, neither of them actually advancing the purpose of free speech (also the purpose of academic freedom), which is that as a society, we must be able to consider even unorthodox solutions to problems offered from unorthodox sources. We have to be free to think about situations in different ways.

Otherwise, we are liable to be stuck in a rut. Like we are in the U.S. with the two-party system where candidates must align with one of two mainstream parties to have any chance of being elected, pretty much anywhere for pretty much any office.

There are partisan hues even for those offices that are allegedly non-partisan: Consider the likelihood of a “soft on crime” candidate being elected as a judge or district attorney. Consider an anti-capitalist’s prospects of being elected as an insurance commissioner.

The free speech/censorship conundrum is similar to that of the two-party system. Neither party is satisfactory. Neither unfettered “free” speech nor censorship is satisfactory. And there is no coherent middle ground between them.

It’s fairly obvious that the two-party system needs to be rooted out and destroyed utterly. It’s pretty easy to envision alternative arrangements: They’re far from perfect, but examples such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Israel offer (somewhat) functional examples. Experiments such as ranked-choice voting help to ameliorate the “electability” problem where unorthodox candidates cannot be elected at least in part because people believe they cannot be elected.

But I honestly don’t know what to do about the free speech/censorship conundrum. I don’t have functional alternative examples. I don’t see how to grant some people authority over speech without enabling the suppression of ideas.

What, for example, when elites (who control mainstream media outlets and have unlimited means of expression for their own ideas) decide my anti-elite ideas threaten them?[1]

In systems theory, we try not to think about contradictions as contradictions but rather as paradoxes. Systems theory is about systems, with feedbacks that function to limit excesses. But the essential nature of censorship is that it suppresses those feedbacks. We see this also where one person’s “free” expression may function to silence other voices.

So I’m pretty clear that I’m thinking about this problem in the wrong way. I know that the high tech industry has it wrong. I know that the advocates on both sides of the conundrum have it wrong.

But I don’t know what’s right.

Update, March 12, 2021: I have been wrestling with the paradox of so-called “free” speech for a while now:

Honestly, I’m still working on it.

Update, March 13, 2021: An article in the Columbia Journalism Review[2] reminded me of my own brush with Twitter’s artificial idiots, which were unleashed in the wake of Donald Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric which the company had officially tolerated[3] until his rhetoric led[4] to a coup attempt on the U.S. Capitol,[5] and it, along with other social media companies, didn’t.[6]

In my case I had commented on the difference between old and new designs for ceremonial keys to the City of Pittsburgh by noting that they were traditionally hung on lanyards around the honoree’s neck, something the newer design would not make possible. Twitter’s artificial idiots, I suspect, saw the words ‘hung’ and ‘neck’ and concluded that my tweet was abusive. My only appeal seems to have been to the very same artificial idiot.

Facebook’s approach has hardly been better, subjecting vast numbers of poorly paid folks to endless horrifying and utterly repugnant videos, in a mass production slave-driving approach.[7] Apart from the sheer inhumanity of this approach, people working these jobs are likely to devote every bit as much thought in their decision to censor or not as they are being paid for, which isn’t much, particularly as they are pushed to “produce” ever more.

The article on Facebook’s approach is instructive, however, in that it reveals something of the sheer scope of the problem. It’s huge,[8] probably much too much for an intelligent approach. Artificial idiocy, relying not on understanding but rather on statistical correlations,[9] seems to be the only alternative.

Which is not at all satisfactory. Which is leaving me pretty damned grumpy.

Update, March 15, 2021: Twitter suspended users mentioning a city in Tennessee named Memphis. Yes, really. It was a “bug,” they say.[10] No, Twitter, no. It is far more than a bug. It’s what you get for using artificial idiocy. It’s the very sort of thing I said would happen.[11]

Update, May 5, 2021: Donald Trump built his presidency around hatred and vitriol toward subaltern groups. His followers loved it; campaign flags, banners, and bumper stickers all proclaimed, “Fuck Your Feelings,”[12] and “Make A Liberal Cry.” When this wasn’t enough to win the November 2020 general election, it culminated in a coup attempt meant to keep Trump in power on January 6, 2021.[13] Social media networks responded by banning and suspending Trump.[14]

Today, Facebook’s oversight board upheld the decision to suspend Trump but also ruled that the network lacked clear criteria for an indefinite suspension. The company will have to revisit its decision.[15]

It seems to me the question should come down to whether we see Trump’s abusive behavior as part of an “immutable essence” in George Lakoff’s critical father model or if it is possible for Trump to redeem himself, as in Lakoff’s nurturant parent model.[16] The key here should be that Trump does not get get an automatic restoration of his Facebook privileges; he must actually redeem himself, demonstrating that he will be better behaved in the future.

In at least part, that should mean a repudiation of hatred and violence. It should mean a repudiation not only of “Fuck Your Feelings” and “Make A Liberal Cry,” but of the sheer hypocrisy of those slogans.[17]

Do I think it likely Trump will indeed redeem himself? Of course not. And that’s really the point: Trump needs to win over skeptics before he should ever be allowed a megaphone on social media again.

  1. [1]For example, Tom Perkins, “Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?” Wall Street Journal, January 24, 2014, https://www.wsj.com/articles/progressive-kristallnacht-coming-1390600169↩
  2. [2]Salil Tripathi, “Twitter is caught between politics and free speech. I was collateral damage,” Columbia Journalism Review, March 12, 2021, https://www.cjr.org/first_person/twitter-is-caught-between-politics-and-free-speech-i-was-collateral-damage.php↩
  3. [3]Joseph Cox and Jason Koebler, “Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too,” Vice, April 25, 2019, https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too; Elizabeth Dwoskin, “Twitter adds labels for tweets that break its rules — a move with potentially stark implications for Trump’s account,” Washington Post, June 27, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/27/twitter-adds-labels-tweets-that-break-its-rules-putting-president-trump-companys-crosshairs/; Twitter, “World Leaders on Twitter,” January 5, 2018, https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/world-leaders-and-twitter.html↩
  4. [4]Devlin Barrett, “Trump’s remarks before Capitol riot may be investigated, says acting U.S. attorney in D.C.,” Washington Post, January 7, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/federal-investigation-capitol-riot-trump/2021/01/07/178d71ac-512c-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html; Andrew G. McCabe and David C. Williams, “Trump’s New Criminal Problem,” Politico, January 11, 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/11/trumps-new-criminal-problem-457298↩
  5. [5]David Benfell, “The danger that remains,” Not Housebroken, January 22, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2021/01/07/the-danger-that-remains/; David Benfell, “Riot or insurrection? Lies or madness?” Not Housebroken, January 22, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2021/01/12/riot-or-insurrection-lies-or-madness/; David Benfell, “The State of the Disunion, 2021,” Not Housebroken, January 22, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2021/01/10/the-state-of-the-disunion-2021/; David Benfell, “The second farce,” Not Housebroken, February 14, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2021/02/14/the-second-farce/↩
  6. [6]Margi Murphy, “Facebook, Instagram and Twitter lock Donald Trump’s accounts after praise for Capitol Hill rioters,” Telegraph, January 7, 2021, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/01/06/calls-twitter-facebook-mute-donald-trump-violence-breaks-capitol/; Tony Romm and Elizabeth Dwoskin, “Trump banned from Facebook indefinitely, CEO Mark Zuckerberg says,” Washington Post, January 7, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-resignations-25th-amendment/2021/01/07/e131ce10-50a3-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html; Nitasha Tiku, Tony Romm, and Craig Timberg, “Twitter bans Trump’s account, citing risk of further violence,” Washington Post, January 8, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/08/twitter-trump-dorsey/↩
  7. [7]Casey Newton, “Bodies in Seats,” Verge, June 19, 2019, https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/18681845/facebook-moderator-interviews-video-trauma-ptsd-cognizant-tampa↩
  8. [8]Casey Newton, “Bodies in Seats,” Verge, June 19, 2019, https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/18681845/facebook-moderator-interviews-video-trauma-ptsd-cognizant-tampa↩
  9. [9]David Benfell, “Our new Satan: artificial idiocy and big data mining,” Not Housebroken, February 23, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/01/13/our-new-satan-artificial-idiocy-and-big-data-mining/↩
  10. [10]Alyse Stanley, “Twitter Banned Me for Saying the ‘M’ Word: Memphis,” Gizmodo, March 15, 2021, https://gizmodo.com/twitter-banned-me-for-saying-the-m-word-memphis-1846474378↩
  11. [11]David Benfell, “Our new Satan: artificial idiocy and big data mining,” Not Housebroken, February 23, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/01/13/our-new-satan-artificial-idiocy-and-big-data-mining/↩
  12. [12]David Benfell, “The Donald Trump supporters’ campaign message: Fuck Your Feelings,” Not Housebroken, December 11, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/08/26/the-donald-trump-supporters-campaign-message-fuck-your-feelings/↩
  13. [13]David Benfell, “Riot or insurrection? Lies or madness?” Not Housebroken, January 22, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2021/01/12/riot-or-insurrection-lies-or-madness/↩
  14. [14]Rachel Lerman, “Trump has been suspended from YouTube,” Washington Post, January 13, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/12/trump-youtube-ban/; Margi Murphy, “Facebook, Instagram and Twitter lock Donald Trump’s accounts after praise for Capitol Hill rioters,” Telegraph, January 7, 2021, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/01/06/calls-twitter-facebook-mute-donald-trump-violence-breaks-capitol/; Tony Romm and Elizabeth Dwoskin, “Trump banned from Facebook indefinitely, CEO Mark Zuckerberg says,” Washington Post, January 7, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-resignations-25th-amendment/2021/01/07/e131ce10-50a3-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html; Nitasha Tiku, Tony Romm, and Craig Timberg, “Twitter bans Trump’s account, citing risk of further violence,” Washington Post, January 8, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/08/twitter-trump-dorsey/↩
  15. [15]Elizabeth Dwoskin and Cat Zakrzewski, “Facebook’s Oversight Board upheld the social network’s decision to ban Trump,” Washington Post, May 5, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/05/facebook-trump-decision/↩
  16. [16]George Lakoff, Moral Politics, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2002).↩
  17. [17]David Benfell, “The Donald Trump supporters’ campaign message: Fuck Your Feelings,” Not Housebroken, December 11, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/08/26/the-donald-trump-supporters-campaign-message-fuck-your-feelings/↩

2 thoughts on “The paradox of free speech and censorship”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.