Many people cast the entirety of the blame for the deterioration of civil discourse at Trump's feet, because he was just so abrasive. I could see the writing on the (Facebook) wall well before he was elected, though. Maybe it's the degradation of churches and other organizations as pillars of the community where people would gather and interact over shared morals and beliefs. Perhaps it was decades of government schooling providing the bare minimum in education that established an American people incapable of critically assessing the veracity of claims. The underlying cause(s) can be debated at another time (hopefully); for now, we're stuck with an unthinking populace that accepts the narrative that best conforms to their worldview.
We were treated to more than three years of Democrats complaining about a stolen election in 2016, including a two-year investigation into Russian interference that proved nothing. In the midst of this, social media company presidents and CEOs were called before Congress to testify about how their platforms might have contributed to the spread of "misinformation", which is funny Orwellian term that simply means "anything that those in power don't agree with". As a result, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other companies with a massive market share over the dissemination of information in our over-connected society began to employ fact-checking on posts, and cracking down more seriously on problematic accounts that allegedly violated an ever-changing Terms of Service agreement.
In the past two years alone, these dogmatic employees of the Internet's Records Department of the Ministry of Truth diligently fact check and bury such stories as:
- Any post that included the name of the alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella used to justify the impeachment against President Trump;
- A New York Post op-ed on the Chinese Communist Party's complicity in releasing Sars-COV-2 on the world;
- A woman tased for not wearing a mask at an outdoor high school football game (fact-checkers claim she was tased for refusing to exit the stadium, where she was trespassing--for refusing to wear a mask);
- A New York Post expose on Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden's relationship with Ukraine;
- Dozens of articles, videos, and links to evidence suggesting fraud in the 2020 presidential election received "misinformation" and "manipulated media" flags ; and
- Myriad articles and videos related to the risks surrounding COVID-19 or the inefficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions promulgated by state and local governments.
Note that many of these issues were welcomed in the sphere of public discourse until they suddenly were not. Trump's dealings with Ukraine were the justification for his first impeachment, but Biden's dealings through his son were buried. The efficacy of mandatory mask-wearing and harsh lockdowns were the source of rigorous scientific study in years past, but everything prior to 2020 has been declared junk science. Now, following the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, everything that happened throughout the summer of 2020, when cities were literally on fire (mine included), has been memory-holed in favor of a narrative that right-wing extremists tried to overthrow the government.
This Medium article talks about Facebook's efforts in trying to fact-check users' postings. But my question is, why is it Facebook's responsibility to moderate its users interactions on the platform? In fact, so doing should open it up to liability under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Under that provision, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's primer on Section 230,
This legal and policy framework has allowed for YouTube and Vimeo users to upload their own videos, Amazon and Yelp to offer countless user reviews, craigslist to host classified ads, and Facebook and Twitter to offer social networking to hundreds of millions of Internet users. Given the sheer size of user-generated websites (for example, Facebook alone has more than 1 billion users, and YouTube users upload 100 hours of video every minute), it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site.
And yet, following the 2016 election, Section 230 has been used to shield content platforms from liability when they moderate, block, or otherwise alter user-generated content. In other words, they have ceased being platforms and become publishers in those moments, and they do not apply this rigor neutrally or universally. Further, because "Big Tech" only instituted these policies in response to Congressional action following Trump's election in 2016, there is a legitimate argument that these private companies are still violating the First Amendment. This Wall Street Journal opinion (behind a paywall) provides some background on U.S. case law that could support such an argument:
Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”
Such threats have worked. In September 2019, the day before another congressional grilling was to begin, Facebook announced important new restrictions on “hate speech.” It’s no accident that big tech took its most aggressive steps against Mr. Trump just as Democrats were poised to take control of the White House and Senate. Prominent Democrats promptly voiced approval of big tech’s actions, which Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal expressly attributed to “a shift in the political winds.” (emphasis added)
Now that I've laid out the 30,000-foot view of the landscape, let me explain how this affected my decision to leave Facebook. I was one of the early adopters of Facebook, back when a university email address was still a requirement to join.
Twelve of my fifteen-plus years on the social networking site were enjoyable. I managed a few different Groups that were fun and full of laughs. I enjoyed sharing numerous inside jokes with friends, and there was even a time when I began a "Poke-for-prayers" campaign using Facebook's (formerly more prominent) "Poke" feature, which allowed a user to let another user know he or she was being thought about. Though many may have disagreed with my takes on hot issues of the day and even some of my noncontroversial positions, I often looked forward to seeing the notification bell lit up and a post garner so many responses. The "marketplace of ideas" seemed to be thriving.
Facebook has gone through many changes over the years, and that has made it a bit difficult to look up old posts. Although I have matured as a Christian husband (and now father), which hopefully has been reflected in my discourse in recent years, I would like to think that my ideas and arguments made over the last decade and a half have been intellectually consistent. At least the occasional Facebook Memories highlights of old "debates" make me think I continue to argue for liberty and against government overreach.
For example, when I became politically aware in the second term of George W. Bush's presidency I was introduced to libertarianism through Reason.com's blog, Hit&Run. The blog offered quick snippets and myriad examples of government abuses and intrusions into individuals' day-to-day lives. Coupling this exposure with my own experiences in quasi-capitalist, quasi-socialist Japan, as well as the stories I heard from my dad operating his own vending machine business, it became clear early in my adulthood that government can only ratchet one way: toward increasing regulations that protect powerful interests.
Now, many would think this provides a lot of common ground with people across the political spectrum, or with those who are politically apathetic. If we have identified the culprit, then we can work toward a solution, right? Well, Barack Obama's presidency shattered any hope of that possibility, as millions of his supporters suddenly forgot about the antiwar positions they held during Bush's presidency. Similarly, even the socialists who vehemently decry "money in politics" and "powerful interest groups" had little to say when President Obama signed his massive omnibus bailouts for favored industries or boosted insurance company coffers by requiring millions of previously uninsured (by choice) Americans to pony up and start contributing premiums. I was in that latter camp for a number of years, where it simply didn't make financial sense in my mid to late-20s to carry insurance for the 1-2 times per year I went to the doctor.
But after the 2016 election, something "broke" in a lot of people. Reasoned discourse was no longer tolerable, let alone encouraged. Emotions ruled the day. Even the writers at Reason, where I had cut my political chops, had gone off the deep end. Many declared ahead of the election that supporting Hillary Clinton--a deeply-entrenched participant in the DC "swamp" that so many admit exists--was far superior to the firebrand candidacy of Donald Trump.
I tried to take a break at the onset of COVID-19, and it was actually nice. I knew that I would disagree with most of what was being posted. Too many people, in my opinion, have been overly supportive of government efforts to fundamentally alter our lives because of a virus that cannot be controlled. Yet as the lockdowns dragged on despite ever-increasing evidence that they do not work, I convinced myself that I could not stay silent. As many were expressing outrage toward "systemic racism" they believed existed in American institutions, I reactivated my Facebook account to try to be a voice of reason amidst all the chaos.
Boy, was that a miscalculation on my part! If I thought Trump's presidency broke some people's sanity, COVID-19 shattered it. Any attempt to point out that individuals should have the sole authority to assess risks for themselves without the government ordering them how to behave--after all, are we citizens or children??--was roundly shouted down as uncaring, unloving, and unAmerican. Because I've seen that mask-wearing compliance was over 85% in the country, I posted a straw poll to ascertain people's reasons for doing so since prior to COVID-19 such non-pharmaceutical interventions were not proven effective. The responses varied, but those who felt most justified in their moral superiority used it as an opportunity to say I was "spreading misinformation" and attack my sources. I should take this opportunity to mention that my sources were systematic reviews of randomized control trials, the gold standard for research, and the CDC's own website stating that masks add no significant protection.
Debate is important and healthy for a just and fair society. An important element of debate, however, is intellectual honesty. When my Facebook acquaintances (I struggle to call many of them "friends" at this point) discount sources as not credible rather than address my central argument, and make moral accusations like "that's not very Christian of you", they display intellectual dishonesty and care only about winning the argument, or more accurately, claiming moral superiority for their position. This is not healthy debate; it's shouting down an opponent. And it shows that we're not a free society where ideas can be openly discussed no matter how controversial they might be.
In addition to the platform no longer meeting my desire for healthy debate, I could tell that it was tempting me to sin by lashing out in anger at comments that were angrily directed at me, or leading me to critique posts not directed at me for being wrong. If I wasn't giving way to anger I was seeking out conflict, both of which are called out as sinful works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). Romans 12:1 instructs me to "present [my body] as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is [my] reasonable service" (KJV, emphasis added). Verse 2 warns that I should not "conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of [my] mind" (NIV). Both of these verses emphasize the importance of keeping the mind, the reasoning faculty or intellect, focused on "the things of heaven, not the things of earth" (Col. 3:2 NLT). The sin nature relies on our emotions to dislodge us from framing our minds on the things of God--His character, promises for believers, or our position in the risen Christ--and the world system likewise tempts us through distraction and by fomenting conflict where there needn't be any. Whether intentionally designed to antagonize the sin nature or not, Facebook and other social media websites' algorithms operate to keep us engaged with their platforms.
Not everyone is susceptible to the same temptations, though everyone's sin nature does operate in the same manner. My wife, for example, can easily scroll through her Facebook feed for 30 minutes without raising an eyebrow or becoming annoyed at what other people are posting, as I might. She is still engaging, however, and at times unconsciously. So even where her emotions are kept in check, she can still be dislodged from the correct framing of her mind due to the distraction of social media. We both recognize that danger, and have taken steps to correct it. For me, that means leaving social media altogether.
So I thank God for revealing through COVID-19, the BLM riots, and the 2020 presidential election the lies and manipulation as well as the distracting nature of both traditional news media and social media. I pray for my fellow citizens and especially that the leaders in my city, state, and country will repent of their unbelief and see the glory of an awesome and unchanging God. Through repentance they might see the folly of their ways and allow God's people to live quiet and peaceable lives (1 Tim. 2:1-2). Until then I find comfort in knowing that I have been chosen by a loving and gracious God to be with him in eternity (Rom. 8:18-30), and he gives me strength and encouragement through His Spirit and in the name of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:15-17, 2 Thess. 2:13-17).
I do want to stay in touch with people. Feel free to reach out via Facebook messenger over the next month if you want to share contact information, and I hope to post more frequently here whenever particular thoughts come to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment