Ferguson, N. (2021) ‘Control, halt, delete‘ The Spectator, January, Vol 345; no 10,038 p. 12-14
‘Can anyone stand up to big tech?’ questioned the historian Niall Ferguson in a weekly British magazine on politics, culture and current affairs ‘The Spectator’. The article outlines the growing power of big network platforms Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Google and Apple (he later simply refers to this combination as FATGA) over social media platform users’ (including high rank politicians such as President D.Trump) opinions and freedom of speech. One of the most vivid questions I raised in my project ideas proposal was whether modern technology (internet, social media platforms in particular) has any impact on our freedom of speech or freedom of expression (when we talk about artists) and what that impact might be. This question is extremely relevant in today’s society because technology growth changes our ways of living, natural environment, our sociable behavior, and beliefs. The last few decades have shown what modern society values the most - voice, equality, freedom (I am referring to the numerous protests that happened in the past few decades starting with political and legal independence of countries and regions and finishing with human rights and environmental activism). I chose the above source because of its recency and relevance to my research theme in sociological context.
N.Ferguson starts off by comparing the power and dominance of FATGA with the Pre-Reformation Catholic Church at its height of power. This comparison gave a pretty clear insight where big tech companies stand in our everyday lives today. In 2020/2021 it was proven to us that without smartphones, laptops, apps and other “modern day ammunition” we wouldn’t be able to enter a restaurant or have team meetings at work, nor also seek medical advice or educate our children. This is quite a felicitous comparison, I would say, and just to add up, I think despite all the comfort and advance we have in our lives today thanks to modern technology, the question of freedom of speech on social media platforms is still on the table.
Subsequently some facts about censorship on online media platforms were laid out in this article. N. Ferguson casually tells readers how Twitter and Facebook start shutting down and suspending multiple accounts 'because of their expressed political views’ (Ferguson, N., 2021, p.13) and points out discrimination of some social media users (he uses the recent example of President D. Trump and his supporters). Then contrasts this to the argument raised by Justice Anthony Kennedy that it is unconstitutional to prevent sex offenders from accessing and expressing opinions on social network platforms. This parallel makes me (and probably most of the readers) consider what is acceptable and not on social media platforms and if all opinions are really welcome. Not very long ago I noted Australian conservative political commentator Sydney Watson asking her followers on YouTube to follow her on other platforms as YouTube allegedly deletes her content (and recently the broadcaster TalkRadio had their YouTube channel temporarily removed for objecting to the latest lockdown measures bought in by the U.K government). This once again proves the relevance of the issue raised in N.Ferguson’s article.
Where does law stand in the matters of free speech on the online platforms? Who is held accountable in the cases of hate speech and harmful in any way content online, user or provider? Justice Anthony Kennedy refers to online platforms as “the modern public square”, “most important place for the exchange of views” (Ferguson, N. 2021, p.13) various lawsuits over the years been referring to the big tech as: “public good, held in private hands” (Ferguson, N. 2021 p.13). These names gave us an inkling of a free, comfortable and trusted environment to express our opinions and hear others. The article then refers us to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which states that the websites are immune from liability for what their users post, but also entitled to take down any content that they don't like. This Legislation (in the US) in my opinion, is pretty outdated taking into account how fast technology is growing and social media platform influence is rising (there is mounting evidence that more and more younger people get their news from social media as opposed to more traditional means). However, it raised another contentious question in my head- are we free, censored or both when it comes to social media platforms?
Throughout the whole article N. Ferguson expresses constructive criticism to FATGA and their relation to political and sociological opinions expressed online. He gives examples of “silenced” or banned until-lockdown campaigners, politicians and even academics. The argument the author raises is whether something should be done about it ? Change of legislation referring to the internet? Yes I agree that it should be reviewed merely because technology is moving forward so fast and the internet has become a huge part of our everyday life. It is one of the best inventions of humanity- a network which allows us to communicate and access information from any part of the word. With censorship (even if it is invisible, and doesn’t directly affect us) we lose opportunity to hear and challenge each other’s and our own opinions, improve in certain fields when we receive criticism addressed to us, opportunity to reevaluate our own views and gain critical thinking which helps us to move forward. We don’t want a step back for freedom of speech in the 21st century.
Combining satirical comparisons and publicism historian Niall Ferguson created an engaging style of this article compelling readers once again reconsider big tech companies’ influence on our freedom of expression. In the end of the text he refers to George Orwell (English novelist, journalist and critic) who raised concepts of socialism, censorship and invisible society manipulation in his mid 20th century novels and essays, and leaves some space for readers to decide whether it is fiction or prediction of our future.