In the wake of social media platforms and information service conglomerates suspending, banning and prohibiting certain people from communicating via their platforms–including a sitting President of the United States–there is growing alarm at the power being wielded by a privileged few and the implications of how that power is being used. We should be concerned, I believe, by what we’ve witnessed so far and I don’t have much hope that the future is bright when it comes to the free exchange of ideas, information and opinion.
As someone who deals primarily in fundamental principles, as a theologian and as an attorney, I am attempting to draw attention to the underlying principles that drive our opinions, decisions and alliances. I’m concerned about the nature of what is happening around us and I want to help others understand the implications and ramifications of the suppression of information by ANYONE, including governments and private or publicly traded companies.
It has been interesting to see the responses to the censorship. On one end of the spectrum there is alarm at what has transpired in a short amount time; on the other end, jubilation at the suppression of information and the free exchange of ideas and information. The reactions I’ve seen are both encouraging and frightening. We’ve entered uncharted waters as a culture, and I’m so sure that what lies ahead is promising for anyone, including those who are currently jubilant. The divide in the United States is stark and growing and how people have reacted to the silencing of those they do not agree with should be startling.
Some who disagree with the suppression of information by a social media platform are in principle are, though, pointing to “Terms of Service” as a justification for the suppression of information. Others suggest the suppression it is just the sharp end of the stick of capitalism…live by the sword, die by the sword. But are those fair analyses or is that an exercise in missing the point? I suggest it’s the latter. The question we should be asking is not “could they?” (because they could and they did) but rather “should they and what does the fact that they did tell us about them and the world around us?”
Before answering those questions, consider this: The flow of information in our world has developed to a place where a few information conglomerates control the flow. At their discretion, the most efficient means of communicating—and for some, their only means—can be shut off and removed. Think about the players: Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, Amazon, to name a few. These multi-billion dollar enterprises were built on brand trust (none of us, I’m sure, would have joined any of these services if we had truly known what they would do with our information and that they’d one day attempt to babysit our minds and keep information from us) and now that trust has been breached (in my opinion). Whether we knowingly gave up our “right” to the free exchange of information via these platforms in exchange for the right to use the platform is a legal question worth exploration, but the truth is we did give these few companies vast control over how we communicate and now we are watching as that concentrated power now decides what we get to hear, see, and consume.
Don’t get me wrong: No private business should allow the exchange of illegal materials or allow illegal activity on their platform. But differences of opinion, even dissent, should be allowed. The “terms of service” should be geared to stopping things like human trafficking, terrorism, and exploitation. But it should not prohibit the exchange of ideas, including ideas its founders might disagree with. If that’s going to be the “terms of service” then many of us should chose to end our reliance on these providers. But for now, think about the concentration of power . . .
A handful of companies can disrupt the flow of global information on a whim. What they deem inappropriate now could morph into something more: what happens when they deem the dissemination of the Gospel as in violation of their “terms of service”? That will happen, I’m quite sure. Our reliance on these providers has placed us all in a dangerous position of having our ability to communicate cut off at any moment, for any reason. The fact that they would cut it off is what I’m mostly concerned about and that’s what I hope you’ll think about with me. They have and they will control the flow of information. And it will not stop with social media. There are already calls for cable service providers to stop carrying certain networks; alternative communication methods are being removed from “app stores”. How long until the terms of service for your email provider, your hosting provider, your cell service provider, your internet provider require that you conform your sharing of information to their standards of right and wrong and all “dissent” is suppressed in service of a certain agenda?
I don’t know that I have the answers, but I do know I have questions. And concerns. And you should too. The power to influence the global flow of information is a new power that even most governments don’t have (and those that do are totalitarian).
Where we stand is here: Those with the most power over us are not elected leaders, but rather business owners who duped us into agreeing to use their services and once they obtained a monopoly, they showed their true colors. I call on all of these platforms and providers to renounce the suppression of information, to voluntarily give up their unprecedented power, and to stop treating us like uneducated rubes. We don’t need “big tech” or anyone else babysitting our minds, our information consumption, and our ability to discern truth.
We are grown adults who can tell the difference between inciting a riot–for example–and political speech that is not our preference. We know how to hear bad information and shake our heads at it. We don’t need someone “protecting us” from information, good, bad, or ugly. We are all adults. Let us decide what we need to hear, see, and consume. Let us decide how to respond. And for those who are comfortable with the concentration of power in the hands of a few business owners—to the extent that they can shut down one of the main communication channels President of the United States—I implore you to consider what such power can do to you.