In case it wasn’t clear enough already, Big Tech isn’t even bothering to pretend any more: it has never been about “hate speech”, only censorship.
What I’m talking about is the ever-tightening noose of “Community Standards”. Far from “protecting” anyone from “hate speech”, the rules are clearly enforced strictly one-way. Facebook and YouTube have admitted as much, when they state that they will allow violent and racist speech directed at Russians. Facebook is even allowing open praise of neo-Nazis, so long as they’re anti-Russian neo-Nazis.
Anti-free speech activists invariably parrot the stock meme they’ve been taught: it’s not censorship unless it’s the gubmint! Which only shows how little they really know about free speech.
In any case, more and more, governments are trying to get in on the anti-free speech act.
Jacinda Ardern used the Christchurch massacre as an excuse to launch a global jihad against free speech. Australia’s increasingly Byzantine “anti-discrimination” laws are choking free speech. In fact, Australians only narrowly dodged the bullet of proposed Gillard-era laws which would have made “offending” someone on “the basis of political beliefs” illegal (in a classic two-steps-backward move, the passing of gay marriage has led directly to even tighter regulations on free speech and freedom of religion). Justin Trudeau’s government tried to pass laws that would have made even thinking of posting something “hateful” an offence.
Then there’s Britain.
British police regularly investigate “non-crime hate incidents”, or selectively arrest street preachers and speakers at the (former) home of free speech, Speaker’s Corner. Its “Online Safety Bill” will make the overreach of censorship infinitely worse.
Big Brother Watch is highlighting the problem with censoring controversial but legal speech, by showcasing comments previously made by UK politicians. The civil liberties group warned that the upcoming Online Safety Bill would make the censorship situation worse.
As Facebook and YouTube are proving beyond doubt, “online safety” only goes one way: whatever our commissars of censorship say it does. When Candace Owens took just a sample of the unhinged anti-white vitriol of a senior New York Times editor and changed “white people” to “Jews”, she was instantly suspended from Twitter.
Big Brother Watch conducted an experiment, where it used dummy personal accounts to post quotes previously made by politicians, including PM Boris Johnson and Labour Party’s deputy leader Angela Rayner.
Rayner’s comment that police officers should “shoot terrorists and ask questions second” was blocked for “violence and incitement.” Johnson’s comment that Muslim women in burkas resemble “letterboxes” was removed for “harassment and bullying.”
This was no inadvertent censorship by over-sensitive algorithms.
The civil liberties group appealed the removals, but Facebook refused to reinstate the posts.
Big Brother Watch said the removals were testament to the “chilling effect on free speech” the upcoming Online Safety Bill would bring.
It added that its experiment “clearly demonstrates that such controversial yet lawful speech is destined for unprecedented censorship.”
Reclaim The Net
You will get to say whatever Mark Zuckerberg and Jacinda Ardern say you can and you will be happy.
Or else.