Archives For Facebook

“Pro-Freedom of Speech” Facebook Cancels Australian M.P. Craig Kelly

May 5, 2021 — Leave a comment

Silicon Valley is yet again proving that they’re an anti-democratic monopoly, willing to ban, block, boot, and blunt the voice of Democratically elected representatives.

Craig Kelly is their latest victim.

Facebook has banned the Australian Member of Parliament for breaching their COVID rules.

One of those posts in question was Kelly’s proposed bill to ‘Ban Domestic Passports’ within Australia.

ACL director Martyn Iles called the targeted ban, “big tech censorship”, noting that one of his “The Truth of It” videos have been censored, and that when it comes to Facebook “he, himself, is on borrowed time.”

Iles has good reason for thinking this way. Radical Leftist Jihadists spurred on by the collaborative cancellation of President Donald Trump, appear to love a book burning.

For instance, as Iles noted, Amazon’s ‘recent ban on one of the most carefully written scholarly books on transgenderism, by Dr Ryan T Anderson.’

In addition, Tik Tok ‘(without explanation) permanently banned PragerU’s Amala Ekpunobi, a young, African American, conservative woman whose content tends to be nothing short of excellent.’

The ACL director declared: they censor because they’re scared of ‘truth. Truth is exposed by analysis. Truth has the power to persuade people. It is hard to fight fair against truth.’

He then pointed out that ‘the woke worldview is built on a foundation of lies, which must be protected at all costs – especially the most fragile ones. Censorship is the only tool they have to fight truth. They dare not let it free, or argue with it.’

I’m going to add that the kings and queens of the information age seem determined to exert political power, where political power hasn’t been granted to them.

The technocratic Tower of Babel bubble, that is Facebook, and Twitter (et.al) are how people do business.

There is no opt-out clause. Ours is now truly a technological society.

Technocrats don’t seem to just want the world, they want to run it, and they’re on their way to owning you.

Many businesses use their platforms to communicate with employees, passing on vital information that affects the livelihoods of everyday people, living everyday lives.

The technocracy in California thrives on this co-dependent relationship. They are rulers of the governed, without the consent of the governed.

It’s an abusive relationship, trademarked by Big Tech’s collaborative effort to interfere in the 2020 United States election, when they punished customers on their platforms for objecting to conscription into Silicon Valley’s predominantly Leftist groupthink paradigm.

The way they wield power through their sheltered, centralised hub betrays an arrogance not dissimilar to what Democrat Senator, J. William Fulbright, in 1966 called, ‘power confusing itself with virtue.’

Fulbright was lamenting his vote supporting the Democrat led push to increase America’s involvement in Vietnam. He saw the ‘organised slaughter’ as an outworking of the ‘arrogance of power.’

The relevance is simple. For Fulbright, this was ‘welfare imperialism’; a big nation dictating their terms of existence onto a smaller nation.

In today’s geopolitical vernacular, it’s Communist China vs. the Free People of Hong Kong. Likewise, Communist China vs. the Republic of China (Taiwan). 

By banning criticism, Big Tech follows the road of ‘exaggerated power’, where it ‘can admit no wrong-doing,’ because it’s too invested in an agreed upon consensus, that demands ‘unquestioning support.’ (ibid)

Their COVID-19 wall of silence that bans alternative opinions from “unapproved” professionals, and its vetting system that ensures loyalty to the agreed upon narrative is an expression of this ‘arrogance of power.’

This overthrow of elected representatives raises some important questions about where do we go from here.

One possible way that Big Tech can work around their concerns about “fake news” content is by extending grace to the official accounts of our elected representatives.

Could something akin to parliamentary privilege be extended to elected representatives using social media?

I’m convinced it could. If Big Tech is serious about civil liberties, primarily freedom of expression and speech, such an extension is not only an appropriate application of grace towards elected representatives, but its fast becoming a necessity.

The voice of the people, for the people should be protected.

Parliamentary privilege empowers this; it ‘refers to an immunity from the ordinary law, which is recognised by the law as a right of the houses and their members.’

As such, ‘parliamentary privilege exists for the purpose of enabling the houses of the Parliament to carry out effectively their functions.’

For example: ‘the primary functions of the (upper-senate; lower-representatives) houses are to inquire, to debate and to legislate.’

The sad reality is that, for all the bluster about being platforms for freedom of speech, Big Tech aren’t all that interested in being platforms for freedom of speech.

There can be, said Fulbright, ‘no solution to a problem until it is first acknowledged that there is a problem.’

It’s doubtful that the technocratic kings and queens of this new aristocracy are aware that the fault, as well as the remedy for it, lies with them.

References:

J.W Fulbright, 1966. The Arrogance of Power Random House Publishing Group.

First published on Caldron Pool, 28th April, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

In Australia, Australian History, Politics , , ,
permalink

Facebook suspends Conservative Politician For Advocating Informed Consent

February 22, 2021 — Leave a comment
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is kelly-gvl-caldron-pool-2021.png

Australian politician, Craig Kelly’s Facebook page has been suspended over at least four quotes he’d posted in February. Each post gave expert opposing viewpoints to the accepted expert narrative over treatments for C0VID-I9.

The Liberal Party member for Hughes told The Australian’s Richard Ferguson that ‘Facebook went through thousands of my posts and only found five that led to the ban.’

Kelly, who isn’t an “anti-vaxxer”, said he “supported the Morrison government’s message on vaccinations,” and that all he is only “advocating for treatments in concert with the vaccine.”

According to The Australian, Facebook declined to comment, but said ‘that social media giant would crack down on any COV1D misinformation on its site;’ [quote] “We don’t allow anyone to share misinformation about C0VID-I9 that could lead to imminent physical harm.” [unquote]

Kelly has been a strong advocate for civil liberties throughout the COV1D-I9 crisis.

He is one of the few politicians with the moxie to tell it like it is. Up until his public confrontation with Labor’s Tanya Plibersek, and a subsequent ‘dressing-down’ by the Prime Minister, Kelly took a strong stand for Australians to have the right to “weigh the evidence” before taking the vaccine.

In a blunt explanation for Kelly’s ban, Rebel News explained that he was “booted” for one week for ‘touting the benefits of hydroxychloroquine.

The Guardian, outlining reasons for the social credit score reduction to Kelly’s page stated that

‘The three posts related to: unproven claims about hydroxychloroquine by professor Dolores Cahill; a profile of professor Thomas Borody in the Spectator which includes advocacy of ivermectin to treat coronavirus; and claims by pathologist Roger Hodkinson that masks are “useless” for children and “paper and fabric masks are simply virtue signalling”.’

In response, Kelly told the Guardian that,

“The points are a legitimate point of view. I’m not posting my opinions; I’m posting the opinions of medical experts. “whether [the views are] right or wrong is a matter of debate, but their views should be debated”.

When asked for comment, Craig Kelly told Caldron Pool that “it was a sad day for free speech and public debate.”

He explained that,

“the four they’ve identified are actually not my opinions but opinions of highly ranked medical professionals, which I’ve put direct links to. In fact, one of them was nothing more than a cut and paste job from a story published in the Spectator magazine, on Australia’s professor Thomas Borody, and how he was suggesting Ivermectin could be an effective treatment against C0VID.”

The minister commented on the leap-before-looking, heavy-handed nature of the ban, stating

“The real danger of this is, Facebook argue, ‘It’s against our Community Standards – it’s dangerous stuff. With the studies that are coming through, it’s very likely in the next couple of weeks that the World Health Organisation will actually recommend Ivermectin, which Borody tried to do six months ago; now that debate has been shut down and over a million and a half people have died.”

Speaking directly about the mounting number of reckless bans, and blocking of reasoned content providing an opposing viewpoint, Kelly added,

“The effect of censoring [of] debate on these early treatments could have possibly been responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

So, where we should have been having more open debate and more free debate, shutting down debate is likely to have killed people. Not just one or two people, but probably hundreds of thousands. This is why throughout the last 250 years people have said free speech is so important. This is why people have said, ‘I may not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to my death your right to say it.’”

Cancel Culture’s COV1D-I9 fanatics may have scored a temporary win over Kelly, but in doing so they’ve added to further erosion of civil liberties.

Noting the word, “crackdown” used by Facebook, a better headline here would be:

Fascistbook suspends truth-teller for advocating the right of informed consent.

 

First published on Caldron Pool, 17th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021

In Politics, Theological Reflection , , , , , ,
permalink

“Fact Checkers” Try to Cancel Apocalyptic Climate Change Whistleblower, Michael Shellenberger

July 16, 2020 — Leave a comment

Facebook fact checkers have tagged veteran environmentalist Michael Shellenberger’s Forbes article as “partly false.”

The widely shared article, ‘On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare’, first published on Forbes, rejected ‘climate alarmism’, and featured Shellenberger apologizing for how ‘badly environmentalists have misled the public’ about the relatively new field of climate science.

Facebook’s Climate Science fact checking “Climate Feedback” evaluated Shellenberger’s article, arguing that he allegedly ‘mixed accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change.’

In the pseudo-peer review Climate Feedback cited ‘six scientists who “analyzed” the article, estimating its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’. Stating that [an ambiguous] majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Cherry-picking, Misleading.’

The six “scientists”  were Daniel Swain (UCLA, Climate Scientist), Gerado Ceballos (Autonomous University of Mexico, Ecologist), Jennifer Francis, (Arctic Researcher, Woods Hole Research Center), Ryan Shriver (UOI, Associate Professor), Zeke Hausfather (Climate Scientist, Berkley U, & Director of Climate & Energy, Breakthrough Institute), and  Stefan Doerr (Wildlife Science and Geography researcher, Sawnsea U).

Hausfather and Swain formed the core “reviewers”, with Hausfather’s being the most outspoken. Credentials matter, but prima facie, this isn’t surprising. Hausfather appears to benefit more from Apocalyptic Climate Change hysteria, and therefore has more to lose from Shellenberger’s exposure of any potential climate change fraud than the rest.

The move to quickly slam the credibility door shut on Shellenberger infers that those who are more environmental activist, than scientist, are in damage control. Apparent by the desperate move to counter any loss of ground (funding?), should backers begin to take Shellenberger’s apology for misleading the public on man-made catastrophic Climate Change seriously.

By marking Shellenberger’s article as “partly false”, surely Climate Feedback’s reviewers have inferred that the article is “partly true.” Curiously enough, though, Climate Feedback focused on the “partly false”, and ignored the “partly true.”

Progressive online journal, “Independent Australia” slanderous “fact checking” reaction, called the article a “puff piece” that “attacked Climate Science”. I.A also managed to accuse the ‘Murdoch Press’ of spreading lies, stopping short of calling out Shellenberger as a fake environmentalist and heretic (although strongly implied).

This kind of one-sided, selective fact checking raises its own questions about bias. Are fact-checkers sorting truth from falsehood, or buttressing ‘herd madness’ and it’s shared narrative?

Or as Ian Plimer has posited, are scientists who are in the employ of politicians, Big Tech and the leftist hegemony, ‘crushing opposition to ensure that science serves politics?’ [i] The so-called “facts” simply just follow the money.

Who fact checks the fact checkers? Why are most fact checkers almost certain to be left-leaning activists?

In sum, is Climate Feedback to be trusted as a reliable source?

Author and investigative journalist, Donna Laframbois doesn’t think so. Commenting on an unrelated fact check, Laframboi noted strategic omissions from Climate Feedback reviewers, stating their absolute reliance on the peer-review mechanic to attack credibility instead of holistically evaluating an idea or argument for accuracy, undermined their own credibility.

As Laframbois states, ‘peer review is no guarantee. Not of credibility. And not of accuracy. Fact checkers who say otherwise are [themselves] profoundly misleading the public.’

Ian Plimer seconds this: ‘just because a scientific paper is peer-reviewed does not mean it is correct. The peer-reviewed scientific literature is full of papers that contradict each other so they can’t all be right. Peer review does not stop bad science being published. Scientific theories live or die on evidence, not whether or not they were published in the peer-reviewed literature.’ [ii]

While Shellenberger’s activist “scientist” assassins, didn’t throw down another “sit down and shut up – the science-is-settled, you must “believe” the science” vitriolic, their case against him isn’t airtight.

It comes across as a carefully crafted, neatly packaged denouncement of Shellenberger. One that’s too conveniently aligned with largely leftist dominated Big Tech, and big money, to dismiss any suspicions of bias on behalf of said fact check reviewers.

Some of whom appear to be well positioned, and well-funded members of the fear mongering Gaian priesthood.

To apply the words of Andreas Vou from Spiked-Online, the contempt towards Shellenberger is an example of how ‘terrible of an idea it is to have Big Tech companies act as arbiters of truth.’

To pad the point, Forbes has since suppressed Shellenberger’s article, removing it from his Forbes author page.

Shellenberger isn’t backing down. He’s posted a rebuttal to Climate Feedback and has challenged Facebook’s censorship.

His original article is available on Environmental Progress and a PDF is accessible here.

The explosive piece also kick-started the launch of his book, ‘Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All’.

An excerpt of which has been made available by Shellenberger  for free on Quillette.

References:

[i] Plimer, I. 2011. How to Get Expelled from School: A Guide to Climate Change for Pupils, Parents & Punters, Connor Court Publishing

[ii] Ibid, 2011

First published on Caldron Pool, 13th July, 2020 & The Spectator, 15th July, 2020.

Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

In Political Theology, Politics , , , ,
permalink

George Soros’ Bizarre Anti-Trump Fiat: Calls for Mutiny at Facebook after Accusing Zuckerberg of being in league with Trump.

February 24, 2020 — Leave a comment

George Soros sent in a brief letter to the Financial Times, calling for the removal of Facebook’s CEO and COO, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg. Soros claims that Zuckerberg, who hasn’t followed Twitter in banning all political advertising, is helping Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign in a ‘kind of mutual assistance arrangement with D.T.’ Soros goes on to demand Facebook take action stating, ‘Mark Zuckerberg should be removed from control of Facebook.’

The F.T. posted a copy and paste transcript of Soros’ proposition yesterday. Notably absent from the article was the lack of an introduction, and commentary from FT staff. The transcript was also published without any screenshot, or scanned image of the actual letter, which is strange for publishers who desire to maintain a rigorous level of journalism. Not validating the source of the original letter, casts doubt on its authenticity. However, if urban legend about the power of George Soros is to be believed, it’s possible this is how he intended it, and is exactly how he wanted the letter to be presented.

This isn’t the first time Soros has gone public with his desire to see the current leadership of Facebook face the business world equivalent of a firing squad.

He penned an article for the New York Times, published on the 31st January, arguing that Zuckerberg is engaged in a quid pro quo deal with Trump. As Soros sees it: the deal involves Trump protecting Facebook from government control, and in return Zuckerberg helps get Trump re-elected in 2020.

As evidence (and it’s flimsy), Soros went back to 2016, saying that ‘Facebook provided the Trump campaign with embedded staff who helped to optimize its advertising program. (Doing what Hilary Clinton’s election team declined to do).’ According to Soros, ‘Facebook gave Trump an edge, marking the beginning of a special relationship.’ He then stated that a recent meeting between Trump and Zuckerberg, ‘raised serious questions’.

The billionaire also accused Zuckerberg of only wanting to make a profit. Claiming that under Zuckerberg’s leadership Facebook was only about ‘making money’, not caring about ‘inflammatory and false content, and failing to adequately punish those who spread false information – nor does the company warn those who are exposed to lies.’

Note that Soros never mentions Facebook’s existing fact checking mechanisms when he claims Facebook isn’t doing them. Neither does Soros provide adequate examples or definitions of the terms he’s using. Perhaps what Soros means is that Facebook isn’t fact checking and blocking content that challenges his ideology, or content that he might arbitrarily consider to be false, hateful, phobic, bigoted etc.

The whole thing reeks of desperation. It’s an anti-Trump political manoeuvre. It has little to do with Facebook, and more to do with Soros’ unresolved issues over Hilary Clinton losing what was considered to be an unlosable election. If anything raises serious questions, it’s his inquisition of Trump and Zuckerberg. When a billionaire such as Soros cries victim wisdom should prompt us to ask why. There’s no doubt Soros lost money, and a special level of power because of Clinton’s election loss.

Trump isn’t protecting Facebook, Zuckerberg is. The CEO is doing what he’s paid to do. He is acting in the best interests of his customers, and company, not power-hungry would-be overlords, who think the world owes total allegiance to them, and their ideology.

Soros’ bizarre fiat shows that Zuckerberg is on the right track. This is probably why Soros wants his head. Zuckerberg is no longer buying what Soros is selling. Take for instance, Zuckerberg’s recent defence of free speech and the reforms he’s attempted to implement. They protect Facebook from the Left’s creeping arbitrary control of free speech, by labelling all opposing viewpoints as “hate speech”. Add to this the Left’s creeping arbitrary control over who is good and who is evil.

Zuckerberg appears to be diverging from the pre-approved narrative of leftism, and their zero-sum practice of achieving political goals, which only serve the interests of those who advocate political correctness, abortion, euthanasia, open borders, the imposition of new cultural laws via the LGBT religion, policing speech, thought and undermining the Biblical Christian foundation of Western Civilisation et.al.

As a result of Zuckerberg’s pro-free speech reform, Soros has called for a mutiny at Facebook. Instead of entering into a dialogue with Zuckerberg, Soros has gone behind his back in an attempt to remove him by proxy. One should ask, how this is not another coup attempt, in line with the now proven, Russian Collision hoax, and lies surrounding the attempt to impeach Trump. Soros, it would appear, is on the war path, and is seeking to take command of what he deems to be his enemy’s central communications hub.

Soros’ arrogance in presuming to control what happens at Facebook, must be blinding him to how much his reasoning and persistent demands here, confirm what many have suspected. That a) He’s too close to the Clinton’s b) He has far too much power and reach c) He funds Leftist divisive politics. Soros deliberately trying to undermine the CEO of an independent company, potentially putting that company and its employees at risk, would be enough evidence to support this.

Ironically, regardless of whether Facebook removes its CEO and COO under Soros-fiat, what he has achieved here is the opposite of what he intended. Soros has negated his questionable accusations against Donald Trump and Mark Zuckerberg by exposing himself as the real villain; a divisive manipulator, stamping up and down in frustration because he and others like him didn’t get their own way in October 2016. An event that, despite the lies, false accusations and hostile, undemocratic interference, coming from Soros’ own side of politics, looks set to, thankfully, repeat itself again in October, 2020.

References:

See hyperlinks embedded within the article.

First published on Caldron Pool, 19th February, 2020.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

In Political Theology, Socal Media, Western Civilisation , , , ,
permalink

Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg Says He Wants to preserve Freedom of Expression, but Actions Speak louder than Words

October 24, 2019 — Leave a comment

The line between inciting hate or violence and informing others about that hate and violence is being blurred.

Facebook’s recent heavy-handed actions against Caldron Pool, and Caldron Pool contributor, Evelyn Rae, suggest that the social media platform is happy to unfairly conflate reporting or fair criticism of an event with endorsement of that event. Rae was given a 13 day ban, restricting posts from her Facebook page appearing in newsfeeds because she shared a screenshot of another person’s tweet for people to comment on. Caldron Pool experienced similar censorship after posting an article reporting on ‘Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram, who had executed two Christian aid workers.’ The post was removed. Then restored on appeal, but the restrictions we left in place.

There’s a difference between advocacy and commentary.

If we apply descriptive and prescriptive linguistics to how news worthy events or commentary are presented, we can see that companies like Facebook will inevitably hurt their customer base, because they continue to blur the descriptive and the prescriptive, rather than hold them in tension.

Descriptive is freelance, risky. Prescriptive tells everyone exactly what to do and when. The failure to determine who is saying what, and why, will mean that the prescriptive parameters of speech shut down all descriptive aspects of speech and vice versa. In short, this failure kills freedom of speech and with it constitutional democracy.

Rather than being a paradox of contrasting terms, the descriptive and prescriptive can be viewed as dialectical. There is a relationship between the two. Think of it as a dynamic, dialectic linguistic muscle which moves the limbs of thought and communication forward. This relational dialectic is exemplified by feedback.

Feedback consists of both positive and negative communication. Each serves a unique purpose in evaluating information and data. Without the positive and negative, feedback is pointless. Likewise, without the descriptive process there is no freedom to communicate. Without the prescriptive process, we have no idea how to communicate.

Without the working connectivity of this relational dialectic, conflicting viewpoints have no platform. Feedback has no real role to play other than what it is allowed to be channelled into cheap echo chambers. As a result, freedom of speech either ends up adrift in a sea of discordant noise, or it becomes stuck in the paralysing quagmire of political correctness and identity politics.

We end up with what Chantal Mouffe, in The Democratic Paradox (2005), called a ‘third way’, a ‘one dimensional world’ where the ‘blurring of the frontiers between Left and Right, jeopardise the future of democracy’. This is because of an aversion to freedom of thought and freedom of speech. An aversion played out through a fear of losing, a fear of conflict, fear of people being able to discriminate and choose between two competing ideas. This would include a fear of free speech because of insecurity, and the overbearing, unachievable quest for absolute equality.

Political opponents are no longer friendly adversaries, but are pitted against each other as bitter enemies.

Constitutional Democracy ends up like a ship that’s lost its ability to move – fodder for jagged rocks; the play toy of manipulative propagandists, the progenitors of totalitarianism, and their progeny: lies, confusion and powerlessness.

There is no push and pull; no dialectic muscle to empower Mouffe’s idea of classical liberal democracy, where friendly adversaries negotiate, disagree, are diplomatic, and apply temporary compromise under the banner of unity in diversity.

According to Mouffe, the future of ‘modern democracy lies in the recognition and legitimation of conflict, along with the refusal to suppress it by imposing an authoritarian order. It’s strength lies in its ability to replace antagonism (intense dislike and deep seated hostility) with agonism (positive struggle; constructive conflict).’

For Mouffe, ‘conflict need not involve the identification of an enemy whom one wants to destroy; conflict between adversaries who may disagree can exist, but ultimately they respect one another’s right to exist.’ Bitter political enemies are ‘no longer perceived as an enemy to be destroyed, but as an ‘adversary’, that is somebody whose ideas we combat but whose right to defend those ideas we do not put into question.’ [i]

The dialectic muscle that is push and pull, allows us to hear different perspectives, formulate an opinion for ourselves, and freely communicate that opinion in a way that others can understand it. This dialectic muscle is a vital muscle for the body politic. Communication as descriptive and prescriptive dialectic, are good for constitutional democracy. They are the ingredients necessary for freedom of speech to function properly.

Social media platforms must embrace this relational dialectic by seeing that there’s a difference between describing and prescribing; the difference between commenting on events or ideas, and using those events or ideas to ‘incite violence or risk imminent harm.’

Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg broke with the norm this week. Standing up and speaking out in favour of freedom of speech, the CEO outlined how one of his biggest challenges at Facebook was finding an answer to policing freedom of expression, while ensuring such an action doesn’t hurt freedom of expression.

Describing how difficult this is, he said “some people think our policies don’t prohibit content they think qualifies as hate, while others think what we take down should be a protected form of expression. This area is one of the hardest to get right.”

He expressed concern about ‘polarization’, saying that Facebook ‘has an important role in designing their systems to show a diversity of ideas and not encourage polarizing content.’

Zuckerberg believes that Facebook has two responsibilities in this regard: First, ‘to remove content when it could cause real danger as effectively as we can, and second, to fight to uphold as wide a definition of freedom of expression as possible — and not allow the definition of what is considered dangerous to expand beyond what is absolutely necessary.’

He said that he believed “people should be able to use our services to discuss issues they feel strongly about — from religion and immigration to foreign policy and crime. You should even be able to be critical of groups without dehumanizing them.” He also admitted that Facebook makes “enforcement mistakes” because judging who is saying what and why, “isn’t always straight-forward.”

Pointing to precedents in the United States, the Facebook CEO said, he wants to uphold broad speech rights, stating: “I know many people disagree, but, in general, I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy.”

Zuckerberg rightly stated that “while he worries about an erosion of truth, and that he doesn’t think most people want to live in a world where you can only post things that tech companies judge to be 100% true.”

His quest is to leave a legacy that protects freedom of speech. In doing so he said part of the process is keeping Facebook free of fake accounts, malicious entities exploiting the platform with dubious money making scams, and removing deliberate misinformation that could lead to someone taking hazardous advice.

Part of his concern is the increasing restrictions on free speech in other countries. For example, China’s exporting of their vision of the internet, which suppresses dissent, monitors users speech and determines what kind of speech is allowed.

For me, outside his reliance on the term hate speech and polarization, Zuckerberg’s speech hit the right notes. He says a lot of the right things when it comes to putting in place protections for freedom of speech on the platform, but as with a lot of promising talk, actions speak louder than words.

I was both impressed and surprised by his stance on China, and encouraged by how he acknowledged the importance of preserving freedom of speech and its important role in a vibrant constitutional democracy.

Mennonite theologian, John Howard Yoder wrote, ‘democracy, with its judicial and constitutional processes can be essentially defined as communication.’ [ii]

The danger to constitutional democracy is the undermining of this ability to communicate freely. Free speech is let down through a failure to recognise the distinction between advocacy and commentary; the failure to acknowledge the relational push and pull dialectic of prescriptive and descriptive.

Failure to acknowledge the relational dialectic undermines free speech by emphasising prescriptive speech over the descriptive, or vice versa. This happens through the quest to control others by imposing new cultural laws on the body politic, such as anything not viewed as politically correct, being far too easily hated on, as hate speech.

We’re already see this when political groups, a lot like China’s vision for the internet, prescribe politically correct speech as the only legitimate speech. Nowhere is this more powerfully seen than in forced speech laws regarding Islam, transgenderism, or the LGBT religion in general.

The relational dialectic of push and pull has the power to preserve constitutional democracy, through agreement and disagreement. Just as tension in a muscle is necessary to ensure motion, so is the necessity to have a platform or open forum, where ideas can be aired, challenged and either adopted or reasonably rejected. All of which is built on mutual respect, not necessarily on an obligation to mutual agreement.

Zuckerberg’s concern about polarization places him in agreement with Mouffe’s argument. The preservation of constitutional democracy lies with an effort to utilise constitutional democracy’s capacity to replace antagonism (intense dislike and deep seated hostility) with agonism (positive struggle; constructive conflict).

Freedom of speech is the great relational dialectic muscle of constitutional democracy. Its push and pull gives constitutional democracy momentum. Only through its preservation, and the exercise of it, will we be able to move forward, while also preserving healthy tradition, freedom, rights and responsibilities.

 

References:

[i] Mouffe, C. 2005. The Democratic Paradox, Verso

[ii] Yoder, J.H. 1964, The Christian Witness to the State, Herald Press.

Full transcript of Mark Zuckerberg’s Speech

First published on Caldron Pool, 23rd October 2019 & also featured on The Spectator Australia, 24th October 2019.

Photo by Alex Haney on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2019

In Political Theology, Politics , , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

Three Reasons Why You Should be Concerned about Silicon Valley’s Connection to Communist China’s Golden Shield Project

January 25, 2019 — Leave a comment

If you’re not really into Information Technology and are not aware of what the Golden Shield project is, you’re forgiven. The majority of Chinese people either don’t care or aren’t aware of its existence either.

The Golden Shield Project is Communist China’s massive firewall. It’s designed to keep a lid on dissent and ward off foreign influence on Chairman Mao’s, carefully constructed Communist culture, which was largely forced on the Chinese people during the Marxist/Maoist Cultural Revolution[1].

Some basic history: ‘The Golden Shield project has been in development since the 1990s’[i]. According to a Tom McDonald field study published by the University College of London (UCL) in 2016, ‘The Golden Shield Project is the best-known mechanism of Chinese state control over the internet…though most Chinese people are unaware of its existence, those who are, are largely unconcerned about it.’ (ibid)[2]

Both the UCL study (p.147) and Stanford’s Torfox, state that the ‘self-censorship[3] by Chinese internet users, is essentially the byproduct of both Government censorship’ and an unspoken social media etiquette within China, which views ‘posts regarding news, politics and current affairs as inappropriate’ (p.148).

Whilst the UCL study and Stanford’s Torfox online articles don’t talk in an outright manner, about the role fear plays in self-censorship, with what has happened to China’s Uighurs (Muslim community), and the continued harassment of churches, and house churches, along with the imprisonment of Christians, it’s fair to assume that fear of the Socialist State, plays a sizeable role. Heavy Government restrictions[4] on internet use, means online dissent against the Communist Regime is rare. (As a side note to reasons for how fear plays a role in self-censorship, Communist Chinese authorities also silently encourage doxing. It’s labeled, ‘online vigilante justice’, called “Human Flesh Search Engines“.)

Of the two reports, only Torfox makes the suggestion that self-censorship is the result of compliance with totalitarian Government:

‘What makes the Great Firewall of China so effective (and controversial) is not only its complex technology but also the culture that the system engenders – a culture of self-censorship.  The Chinese government mandates that companies be responsible for their public content.  In other words, it is the job of these companies to make sure that their online portals do not contain any prohibited topics or obscenities.  Leading online news media in China, such as Xinhuanet.com, Chinadaily.com.cn, Chinanews, and Baidu.com obediently follow the government’s decree, pledging that they “will make the Internet a vital publisher of scientific theories… maintain social stability, and promote the building of a socialist harmonious society” (Torfox, Stanford).

Tom McDonald’s field study published by UCL also hints at this reasoning:

‘limiting users access to social media platforms, and certain types of content appearing within them, in order to promote  a social media aligned to both the state and family interests,  was only one aspect of state control. Another method was by populating these platforms with content – propaganda and ‘patriotism’ (p.151) […] ‘Most social media posts about politics are nationalistic. There were very few posts that directly criticized the central government, or policies and attitudes of the state’ (p.161).

There are three good reasons why you should be aware of The Golden Shield Project. First, the project is “supported” by Big Tech (Silicon Valley) Companies. Second, it’s a Communist tool used not just to suppress free speech[5], but create and police, a culture of total compliance with Government approved thought, speech and content. What makes this second point even more alarming is that the technology used for The Golden Shield Project is now being exported. Third, the Golden Shield Project is promoted as being something that upholds family values, while underneath this the Government enforces the socialist state, through total surveillance, and sleight of hand, statist propaganda[6].

Although I use the word, “supported” cautiously, it may not come as a complete surprise that the Golden Shield Project is supported by Big Tech (Silicon Valley) Companies.

According to Torfox, ‘transnational Internet corporations such as Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft are also subjected to self-censorship regulations.  Although censorship is very much against Western ideology, the size of the Chinese market is too profitable for the companies to bypass these opportunities.’ (Torfox, Stanford)

This raises the question, does participating in active censorship, and complying with China’s Golden Shield Project, make these Western, and largely Leftist companies, hypocrites? Further, does this active compliance mean that participating companies are profiteering from an oppressive regime?

Put another way, does the active compliance of Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Cisco, Microsoft, Motorola, and Nortel Networks, with China’s Golden Shield Project (which is designed to abolish, punish, and silence dissent, ‘and promote the building of a socialist harmonious society’) mean that these big tech companies, are profiteering from oppression?

Or, as Grant Clark from Bloomberg suggests, are these companies to be viewed also as victims of China’s Communist heavy restrictions?

Simple examples of this compliance include, when Winnie the Pooh, was temporarily banned in  2017.

More complex data shows Google actively blocking the use of its search engine to look up words unapproved by the Chinese Communist Government.

As highlighted by Harvard’s 2002 comprehensive list of searches blocked by Google in China, by request of the Chinese Communist Government. (Complete Chart) Top Ten:

1. Tibet
2. Taiwan
3. equality
4. dissident China
5. revolution
6. dissident
7. freedom China
8. justice China
9. counter-revolution China
10. news China/Democracy China

With this evidence, and these examples in mind, Western concerns about Big Tech companies, which are often ridiculed as fanatical, and fear mongering, are justified.

When these same companies choose to block dissent or a different opinion on their servers/social media platforms in the West, they are importing the same political lockout system that they (at least, in the case of Google, as shown above) apply to Chinese citizens, under the satisfied and watchful gaze of the unelected Chinese bureaucratic caste.  When these companies block dissent or a different opinion, they are choosing to restrict freedom of speech. They are picking a side, and imposing their favored form of ideology on those who may have no choice, but to use their technology or social media platforms.

This should be of concern to Westerners, because the technology used in the Golden Shield Project is now being exported[7].

According to the McDonald field study for UCL, ‘in China, while propaganda frequently ends up forming the basis of news, not all news comes from, or is, propaganda […] [However] 80 to 90% of China’s news is fake news’ (McDonald 2016, pp.151 & 155). Since ‘the Chinese government controls all of the national authority name servers’ (source), it has total control over social media and social media companies.

Evidence of propaganda is seen in the defense of the GSP. Advocates say that Golden Shield Project is only a tool for protecting family values.  The GSP, however, was designed to protect the Communist state, not families. Its primary purpose is to guard the state against the ‘use of the Internet by domestic or foreign groups to coordinate anti-regime activity.’ (China Golden Shield, 2001)

Stanford’s Torfox confirms this, stating that ‘the government initially envisioned the Golden Shield Project to be a comprehensive database-driven surveillance system that could access every citizen’s record as well as link national, regional, and local security together.’

Ergo, even if upholding family values is now a small part of the usefulness of the GSP, it was not part of the Golden Shield Project’s original intent.

In conclusion, it’s reasonable to have governance of the internet based on a nation’s laws and boundaries, but that governance should be small, effective, and preferably have at its core classical liberal ethos, anchored by the Judeo-Christian moral compass. It’s important to remember, that ‘human beings do not have to serve causes, causes have to serve human beings’ (Karl Barth, Against the Steam p.35).

If when talking about the GSP, our focus is on protecting family values, than the GSP is an easy sell. Protections that include internet safety for Children and adults with addictions are plain common sense. For true freedom to exist, it has to have a certain degree of parameters to ensure and uphold its existence. Otherwise, we become enslaved to the machine, and land somewhere in the Matrix.

However, if the goal of governance over the internet, such as the GSP, is the protection of an ideology, an unelected bureaucratic caste, the invasion and suppression of citizen’s rights, and that control is masked by propaganda about protecting family values, then instead of being controlled by the Matrix, we enter a land controlled by those who own the Matrix, which is as equally horrifying.

References:

[1] For a full explanation of this, see Jacques Ellul’s, 1965 publication, ‘Propaganda’.

[2] For a deeper reading of the history, see Bloomberg’s article called, Quicktake: The Great Firewall of China by Grant Clark

[3] McDonald, author of the UCL field study further claims that ‘such reactions can be understood as ways that townsfolk form a strategy for coping with inflexible  controls that they are  otherwise unable to influence’ (p.148). However, ‘the controls which receive the greatest attention outside China – the Great Firewall and deletion of social media posts – are the ones that typically concern local people the least […] Other systems of control – such as checking users’ ages and restricting access for young people – that act at a local level are immediately visible and very important to townsfolk. Some of these measures come from people’s own convictions about the appropriate use of social media, rather than just from state- imposed restrictions’ (p.150)

[4] Bloomberg: ‘Critics say China’s Great Firewall reflects its paranoia over the internet’s potential to spread opposition to one-party rule. As well as impeding freedom of speech, China’s approach constrains it economically, they say, by stifling innovation, preventing the exchange of important ideas and cutting access to services used by businesses like Google Cloud.’

[5] Greg Walton: ‘Many people in China have been arrested for Internet-related “crimes,” ranging from supplying e-mail addresses to Internet publications to circulating pro-democratic information or articles that are critical of the Chinese government, in blatant contradiction of international human rights law guaranteeing freedom of speech.’ (China Golden Shield, 2001)

[6] Greg Walton: ‘China’s Internet regulations and legislation are guided by the principle of “guarded openness” – seeking to preserve the economic benefits of openness to global information, while guarding against foreign economic domination and the use of the Internet by domestic or foreign groups to coordinate anti-regime activity.’ (China Golden Shield, 2001)

[7]  Stanford: ‘China even exports its technology to other countries such as Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Belarus.’ (The Great Firewall of China: Background. Sourced, 23rd January 2019)

[i] McDonald, T. 2016 Social Media In Rural China, ULC Press, U.K. Link to a free copy of the PDF  (p.146)

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2019

(Also published at The Caldron Pool, 24th January, 2019.)

In Australia, Classical Liberalism, Ideology, Political Theology, Politics , , , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

We Serve Whatever Our Hearts Are Tethered To

April 12, 2018 — Leave a comment

What people think matters; how people see us matters. We anchor ourselves to the opinions and values of others. Men and women latch their value to the people we see as giving us value. Our worth is then neatly packaged into the confined space of that other person’s thoughts and whims. This is all okay up to a point. Humans were built for community, we need good government and organisation; men and women, living in fellowship, not in isolation, are human together.[i]

However, people tethering themselves to the thoughts of others without caution, spells potential disaster. For example, when we get down to the bottom line of Social Media, unless a person is selling something, the heartbeat of those platforms is either genuine sharing, or sharing because of a lack of belonging and self-acceptance; fear of loneliness and isolation. What makes these platforms thrive is the role they play in anchoring one person to a community, whereby that person gains some form of self-worth, validation and completeness as a human. If none of this were true, there would be no rhyme or reason for social media.

It doesn’t seem to matter whether or not the foundation of that self-worth, validation and completeness is at its core faulty and dysfunctional.  If a person gets the feeling that they are accepted and wanted, that’s all that matters. Questions like, “What if that anchor isn’t locked in the right place? What if that anchor only has the appearance of providing safety and isn’t actually safe?” aren’t considered.

What doesn’t seem to matter is whether or not the opinions and values of others are valid, just or holy. These factors seem to be rarely considered. Questioning those who cross-examine us in such a way, is something very few are brave enough to do. Most people would still agree that in all relationships, honesty is still the best policy. Better a wound from a friend, than honey from an enemy. As Solomon put it: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.” (Proverbs 27:6)

Few want to be a source of healthy conflict. Few want to cut loose an anchor for fear of getting tossed on to rocks and being carried away by violent seas.  Even when deep down they know that the anchor is dragging them down into the abyss, most don’t see it, or want to see it, for fear of losing the very thing that they think grounds them to a sense of worth, purpose, community and inclusion. Even if it’s toxic. Oblivious to the false security the anchor provides, when the storm hits, the ship goes down or gets carried away regardless of how they or others feel. If the harbour isn’t safe, it’s best to head for deep water. Finding ourselves stuck in the wrong port can be dangerous.

The reality is that people set standards and draw opinions about us behind our backs. People talk. We are looked at, measured, weighed, judged and then valued. Our position in any community is just as good as our appearance, and our last great performance.  Our worth in those communities is just as good as our silence, compliance and applause for those in positions of power. Sometimes this is done willingly. We want to appease those in power because they have the ability to thrust us into power.

The reality is this: the ambitious, conform. The covetous, charm. The selfish, betray. The prideful play power games; the greedy, lie, and the jealous, manipulate in order to gain. Social media platforms can be just another tool for anyone like this to gain superiority over others. If you can be used as a pawn in this process, you will be.

As stated by Jeremiah, the “weeping” prophet, who had a firsthand experience with rejection and abuse from within his community, the heart is deceitful above all things…who can understand it?’ (Jer. 17:9)

In a recent post to their Facebook wall, Sanctuary International Matrix posted the question:

“Dear Pastor Bob Beeman: I’m tired of trying to be a good Christian. As hard as I try, I still get criticized for what I do wrong. My Christian friends keep reminding me that I’m not a very good example. I’m considering leaving the faith. I’m just too miserable.”

Beeman’s response was on point:

“Sometimes the best examples to me, have been the people who fight the hardest. That fall down the most and get up every time. Because I identify with them, and I want the hope that they have. That’s what the Bible says: First Peter 3:15, “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.”

It’s worth stopping to think about what anchors us. It’s worth asking what our anchor is secured to; investigating to see whether or not our anchor is secure, or if our anchor only has the appearance of being secured. If it doesn’t, or the harbour isn’t as safe as it looks, best to pull the anchor up and relocate. Sometimes pulling up anchor and moving the ship, although hard, may be exactly what God is calling for [ii]. We serve whatever our hearts are tethered to.

If I measured, or tethered my membership criteria in the Church by the standards of others, and not by what God had set for us all, in Jesus Christ, I’d have quit a long, long time ago.

‘Be attentive to God’s Word…Guard your heart diligently, for from it flows the well-spring of life’ – Proverbs 4:23

The struggles are real, but keep both eyes on the prize because inhaled grace ignites.[iii]

‘…Therefore, we who have fled to him for refuge can have great confidence as we hold to the hope that lies before us. This hope is a strong and trustworthy anchor for our souls. It leads us through the curtain into God’s inner sanctuary.’ (Hebrews 6:18-19)

References:

[i] ‘With the creation of woman God expected man to confirm and maintain his true humanity by the exclusion of every other possibility [of a partner].’ (Karl Barth CD. 3:1 p.294)

[ii] “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Jesus Christ, Matthew 6:21, ESV)

[iii] ‘there is no more intimate friend of sound human understanding than the Holy Spirit’
(Karl Barth C.D. IV.4:28).

Photo credit:  Ksenia Makagonova on Unsplash

In Karl Barth, Socal Media, Theological Reflection , , , , , ,
permalink