Do your job
Jan. 10 2021
We have a great responsibility on our shoulders.
It is ours alone.
In the wake of the Capitol riots, we have seen a number of different platforms either ban Trump or have their apps pulled entirely from the marketplace. It seems the images of misguided, self-proclaimed patriots storming the building finally instilled in these corporations a sense of responsibility for the paper on which the propaganda was printed. In my previous piece about the riot, I pointed an accusatory finger toward both politicians and media outlets alike. An informed republic is necessary for its self-governance. We give special rights to news organizations to preserve that essential function. However, just as our society has learned to trust the Times over the Enquirer, there is also a responsibility on the individual to critically consume information. The majority of adults can still recall a time before the internet. My generation (X) is likely the last to carry that nostalgia and the wonder of that technical achievement. The successful navigation of this new power and digital landscape is all our generations’ to map, lest we defer that responsibility and burden to an unknowing one behind us.
On Monday, CNN posted an opinion piece by Ann M. Ravel, the Digital Deception Director at MapLight. In this piece (Ravel, A.M. 2021, January 18th Social media fueled the Capitol mob. Now Biden and Congress must crack down CNN), Ms. Ravel states that “It is troublesome that we've turned over the rules of online deception, harassment and incitement to violence to powerful tech CEOs who are not accountable to the public. Our democratic institutions must take back control and introduce regulations that address incendiary online propaganda.” There are a few sentiments of this statement that I find more troublesome than her observed surrender of authority.
For one, what does “accountable to the public'' mean? Which public? One would agree there are primarily two different “publics” currently and to the one she certainly disagrees with, they were serving. To the other public, those of us abhorred by the Capitol riots, they may not be accountable, but we either are or aren’t consumers of their products. If we wish to hold them accountable, to the only justice prevalent in the marketplace, we simply cease use of their platforms.
Second, and most unsettling, is the call for “our democratic institutions” to “take back control and introduce regulations” of the content created by citizens on these platforms. What Ms. Ravel doesn’t understand, or at least acknowledge, is that Twitter, Facebook, Parler, or any of the other platforms that individuals have chosen to consume their news upon, aren’t actual news organizations, trusted with credentials and freedom of the press. Their responsibility is not to source and fact check information for journalistic integrity. Their only obligation is to the growth of their business. To assign them this duty is to assign guilt of every prolapsed anus to the Arby’s Beef ‘n Cheddar. Requesting government interaction in determining fake from real information on their platforms is to assign unprecedented government interference in the operation of a corporation.
On January 8th, two days after the Capitol riots and Twitter’s ban of that yellow bastard, the ACLU released a statement saying the following, "We understand the desire to permanently suspend him now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions - especially when political realities make those decisions easier.” This statement asserts that even corporations might not have the right to silence people on their own platforms. This is, of course, the farther left sentiment of the issue at hand and equally incorrect in assigning liability.
In 1995, after constant pressure from parental organizations, the media, and politicians such as Bob Dole and then President Bill Clinton, Time Warner sold its $115 million dollar stake in Interscope Records. Gangsta rap was in its heyday, burning a path through every white suburban neighborhood in America and frightening the period panties off the parents within. The government didn’t directly intervene, the corporation chose to cut its ties. This is not all that different from Twitter banning the oozing tumor in the Oval Office. However, gangsta rap didn’t suddenly go away after this transaction. The messaging and lyrics that all those tight laced puritans found deplorable weren’t stricken from our cultural relevance, rather the contrary. Music consumers and, in this case, their parents became better informed of the content and artists. They then made informed decisions about the genre’s music and its place in their homes. Universal went on to buy Interscope Records, which is now part of their presumed 33 billion dollar net worth.
Literature, music, and movies (not of a criminal nature, for those of you holding the child porn card up your sleeve) are all integral elements of our culture, exchange of ideas, and the right to voice those opinions. So what is to be done with a product, not an album or movie, whose entertainment value is derived from those rightful opinions? This question is perhaps the most important philosophical consideration of our generation. For if we do not learn to discern opinion from fact without government censorship, the government will do it for us. And it seems many are willfully requesting this option.
“Freedom of the press” is an important right, but also somewhat confusing in this dawn of infinite information. The lines between news organization and blog, sourced and anonymous material blur constantly. This confusion of confidence accelerates, or perhaps began, with the editorializing of 24 hour news organizations. That damnable path they lead us down is their crime and it is a capital one, for it is yet to be seen if it leads to the death of our nation. However, “opinions as news” is no longer a foreign concept, nor is the knowledge that not all things on the internet are factual. We have learned this much. Our duty is as it always has been: use our own knowledge and wisdom to properly ascertain value with science, evidence, and sourced journalism. We cannot curtail gossip on the internet anymore than we could between neighbors in a 1950’s cul de sac. What makes Ms. Ravel, or anyone else, believe we can do so within a rapidly developing global infrastructure? The solution isn’t the forced silence of those who spread lies amongst us, but to hold to account those whom we’ve elected or employed to better inform us. If we didn’t distrust those whom we’ve ascribed these unique responsibilities to, perhaps the platforms now under scrutiny for their role in the truth wouldn’t have been relied upon.
We have a great responsibility on our shoulders. It is ours alone. Where I agree with Ms. Ravel, is that it is indeed troublesome that we’ve forsaken the governance of deception to tech companies looking to make a buck off of our “hot take” tweet. However, rather than looking for the crumbling embrace of the government to police our new digital world, she should be looking to the organization that published her piece..and herself. Humanity wanted a global network of ever present and growing information. So it’s on us, individually, to determine what of that endless web of data is trustworthy and evidence based. It is on us to demand sourced and verified journalism from our news organizations. It is on us to ache through the growing pains of our new appendage. This requires exercise of our critical thinking and strength training in use of the tools provided. Already the limb atrophies. Evolve..or leave the next generation with the technical equivalent of an eleventh toe.
Shipp
