• The Four Hundred
  • Subscribe
  • Media Kit
  • Contributors
  • About Us
  • Contact
Menu
  • The Four Hundred
  • Subscribe
  • Media Kit
  • Contributors
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • As I See It: Speech On Steroids

    November 11, 2019 Victor Rozek

    When Guttenberg first started cranking out Bibles, the religious authorities who dominated life and discourse in the 15th century were cautiously optimistic. Not only could it save monks years of lugubrious work copying and illustrating the volume, but they assumed this new technology would be used solely to propagate a Medieval version of approved speech.

    But of course that didn’t last long.

    Since its Feudal inception, communication technology and free speech have always had a turbulent and tenuous relationship. The easier it became to disseminate information, the more efficient the spread of heretical, seditious, and unpopular ideas. And the more draconian the blowback.

    Soon after printing became commercial, Protestant reformer Patrick Hamilton was burned at the stake, in part, for the publication of Patrick’s Places, which advocated Lutheran interpretations of scriptural doctrine.

    The practice continues today. Salman Rushdie was fatwad. Anna Politkovskaya dared to write a book critical of Vladimir Putin. She managed to survive nine attempts on her life, but not the tenth. The men arrested for her murder claimed they were simply following orders.

    As history shows, the ability to influence the masses spawns powerful antibodies; notably attempts by offended parties to kill threatening ideas, by killing those who hold them.

    Removing restraints on speech is why the First Amendment, America’s codified embrace of the dictum: “I disagree with what you’re saying but will defend to the death your right to say it,” is both courageous and enlightened.

    But, speech is contextual (you can’t, for example, yell “fire” in a crowded theater), and it is doubtful the framers could have anticipated the corrosive impact of unregulated social media platforms on freedom of speech. Before technology made possible the global spread of calculated lies, fanciful conspiracy theories, and fabricated propaganda, the worst abuses of speech were largely confined to taverns and mimeographed newsletters with empty but important sounding names.

    Regardless, there is a radical difference between an individual voicing an opinion – however deliberately false or harmful – and having the ability to amplify that opinion over global networks.

    As an unintended consequence of its own success, social media has become a platform for hatred, incitement to violence, and disinformation – not to mention election tampering. The question now befuddling Congress and annoying tech companies is: what if anything should we do about it? If one of the functions of government is to protect its citizens against force and fraud, does not the deliberate and prolonged spread of disinformation fall under the heading of fraud?

    Which brings us to Facebook.

    Facebook is the blank slate on which human experience is scribbled. From the sick to the sublime, the insipid to the inspirational, the hateful to the healing, it’s all there. And for Mark Zuckerberg, hosting it has been wildly profitable. But, as an accelerated means of communication, Facebook has become problematic to the very democracy that protects it.

    At least that’s the contention of many observers who believe social media has been weaponized, and that Facebook was used to skew both the Brexit vote and the 2016 election by allowing its site to be the venue for knowingly false and incendiary information. And further, that the propaganda was individualized, based on personal data gathered and sold by Facebook.

    Zuckerberg, for his part, is wrapping himself in the first amendment. “While I certainly worry about the erosion of truth,” he said, “I don’t think most people want to live in a world where you can only post things that tech companies judge to be 100 percent true.”

    Good point. I certainly wouldn’t want an organization like Breitbart, whose founder described it as a platform for the white nationalist alt-right, deciding what’s true and newsworthy. But just when you think that rational people would prefer not to team with neo-Nazis, Facebook decides to partner with Breitbart, among others, in its new news feed scheme. That decision seems particularly problematic given recent testimony by FBI Director Christopher Wray before a House Homeland Security meeting. Wray noted that domestic terrorists have committed more fatal attacks than international terrorists in the United States in recent years, and that “terrorism today moves at the speed of social media.”

    Not to worry. Zuckerberg argues that individual citizens will do their own research to determine what is true and what isn’t. Oh sure, and maybe teenagers will give up their cell phones, and polar ice will stop melting. We are nothing if not lazy consumers of digital information, and while that doesn’t mean we have to be led by the hand to the altar of truth, it certainly helps if we’re not deliberately lied to.

    Undeniably, Facebook has the means to influence elections and shape national debate by allowing deceits and fabrications to infect political ads. In fact, Zuckerberg claims he once considered banning political advertising altogether, but then had the epiphany that banning them would favor incumbents and hurt up-and-coming challengers who might not otherwise have mainstream media appeal.

    In fairness, Facebook has at least taken steps to minimize foreign involvement in our elections. As recently as October of this year, it disabled a network of Russian-based accounts that were posting pro-Trump and ant-Biden propaganda. Paradoxically, if the same propaganda originated domestically, and was couched as a political ad, Zuckerberg apparently would have no problem hosting it.

    So, if you believe Zuckerberg, Facebook is championing the First Amendment, and aiding political underdogs. If you believe his detractors, Facebook is promoting the spread of misinformation and choosing profit over protecting democracy.

    One thing is certain: Democracy in the digital age is as difficult to protect as privacy in the age of surveillance.

    The question of who controls the information commons may ultimately prove unanswerable. Google, Facebook, no one, everyone. The sea of information in which we all swim is composed of billions of drops of data from millions of sources. Controlling it all is fanciful. Besides, the crazies have learned to build their own networks and, on social media, anonymous algorithms feed them, and the rest of us, our preferred information diet based on past digestive preferences.

    Clearly, however, something has to be done. Pushing back on the most egregious abuses of free speech is not denying speech; it is an acknowledgement that manipulation by deceit in the name of freedom will not be tolerated. As Zuckerberg’s employees reminded him in an open letter, “Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing.”

    The First Amendment is suffering from some of the same ills plaguing the Second Amendment: both were established in vastly different times and contexts and both now need reasonable controls to mitigate proven disastrous consequences. In the case of free speech, that means not only ensuring the rights of the speaker, but the rights of listeners as well.

    Share this:

    • Reddit
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Email

    Tags: Tags: AISI, As I See It, IBM i

    Sponsored by
    Rocket Software

    Disrupt Without Disruption

    For over 35 years, Rocket Software’s solutions have empowered businesses to modernize their infrastructure, unlock data value, and drive transformation – all while ensuring modernization without disruption.

    Learn How

    Share this:

    • Reddit
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Email

    Private Cloud Spending Steady, Public Cloud Declines Guru: Better Check Constraints

    3 thoughts on “As I See It: Speech On Steroids”

    • Rob Berendt says:
      November 11, 2019 at 8:46 am

      Always question someone who uses terms like “alt-right” but never uses terms like “alt-left”. I disagree with anyone who says free speech is only ok if it espouses your beliefs.
      It this keeps up I will unsubscribe from this newsletter, again.

      Reply
    • Greg Wilburn says:
      November 11, 2019 at 8:47 am

      That’s another wonderful, liberal opinion… Why no mention of the mainstream TV media, who are essentially doing the same thing. You have a chosen few in control of information. At least on social media we still have a chance of receiving the information and deciding for ourselves!

      And BTW – I’m certain the founders knew exactly what they were doing when drafting the 2nd amendment as well.

      How exactly is this related to the IBM i anyway??

      Reply
    • Sloan says:
      November 12, 2019 at 12:51 pm

      Victor, I do not always agree with your observations and arguments. (In fact, I lean toward feeling Rob and Greg have offered valid feedback.) But I always enjoy your articles and respect the obvious thoughtfulness, logic, and life experience with which you mold your views. Much appreciated as well, is the fact that you offer (and in so, I imagine “welcome”) feedback from your readers. In other words, you don’t take the all-too-common approach of hiding behind a curtain thus ending a most important part of the discussion that takes place after your words land on the page. I believe that there is always common ground on topics such as these and hope that intelligent, caring folks such as yourself, your readers, and our leaders will eventually find it. Thank you for sharing your views in such a unique and thought-provoking way over the years.

      Reply

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

TFH Volume: 29 Issue: 67

This Issue Sponsored By

  • Fresche Solutions
  • Blair Technology Solutions
  • Profound Logic Software
  • ARCAD Software
  • WorksRight Software

Table of Contents

  • Entry Server Bang For The Buck, IBM i Versus Red Hat Linux
  • On Your IBM i Radar Now: CCPA
  • Guru: Better Check Constraints
  • As I See It: Speech On Steroids
  • Private Cloud Spending Steady, Public Cloud Declines

Content archive

  • The Four Hundred
  • Four Hundred Stuff
  • Four Hundred Guru

Recent Posts

  • To Comfort The Afflicted And Afflict The Comfortable
  • How FalconStor Is Reinventing Itself, And Why IBM Noticed
  • Guru: When Procedure Driven RPG Really Works
  • Vendors Fill In The Gaps With IBM’s New MFA Solution
  • IBM i PTF Guide, Volume 27, Number 27
  • With Power11, Power Systems “Go To Eleven”
  • With Subscription Price, IBM i P20 And P30 Tiers Get Bigger Bundles
  • Izzi Buys CNX, Eyes Valence Port To System Z
  • IBM i Shops “Attacking” Security Concerns, Study Shows
  • IBM i PTF Guide, Volume 27, Number 26

Subscribe

To get news from IT Jungle sent to your inbox every week, subscribe to our newsletter.

Pages

  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Contributors
  • Four Hundred Monitor
  • IBM i PTF Guide
  • Media Kit
  • Subscribe

Search

Copyright © 2025 IT Jungle