Freedom of Speech

Book Recommendation – “Speech Police: The Global Struggle to Govern the Internet”

Clicky Steve, , Leave a comment

‘Speech Police: The Global Struggle to Govern the Internet’ is the latest publication from speechpoliceUN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, David Kaye. Following on from his 2018 report on content regulation, this book looks at the issue of who decides what kind of speech is acceptable online, and the potential implications of the increasing expectations placed on platforms to regulate certain kinds of content.

Kaye’s narrative style is both thoughtful and engaging, covering difficult concepts in a clear and concise fashion, but also exploring aspects of the debate that are often overlooked. Coupled with a relatively low page count, this means that Speech Police is not only a valuable read for those already familiar with the questions around content moderation and freedom of expression, but is also extremely accessible for those new to the topic. As a result, this book is a must read for anybody currently studying or working in tech policy, or those who are simply concerned about the future of the Internet.

You can get a copy of Speech Police from Amazon here.

Disclaimer: I am not being paid to review or recommend this book, but if you click on the Amazon link above and buy a copy, Jeff Bezos might send me a few pennies to say thanks. 

Freedom of Speech and the DMCA: Abuse of the Notification and Takedown Process

Clicky Steve, , , , , , 1 Comment

Last month, my first academic journal article was published by the leading international publication on IP law: the European Intellectual Property Review from Thomson Reuters.

From the abstract:

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “notice and takedown” process is increasingly referred to as a model solution for content removal mechanisms worldwide. While it has emerged as a process capable of producing relatively consistent results, it also has significant problems—and is left open to different kinds of abuse. It is important to recognise these issues in order to ensure that they are not repeated in future legislation.

To that end, this article examines the DMCA with reference to its historical context, and the general issues surrounding the enforcement of copyright infringement claims. It then goes on to discuss the notice and takedown process in detail—along with its advantages, disadvantages, criticisms and praise. Specific examples of the kinds of abuse reported by online service providers are outlined, along with explanations of the statutory construction that allows these situations to continue. To finish, the viability of potential alternatives and proposed changes are discussed.

The article itself is available on WestLaw, citation: E.I.P.R. 2019, 41(2) at 70. However, you can also get a copy of the PDF below.

Freedom of Speech and the DMCA: Abuse of the Notification and Takedown Process (PDF)

This material was first published by Thomson Reuters, trading as Sweet & Maxwell, 5 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AQ, in European Intellectual Property Review as ‘Freedom of speech and the DMCA: abuse of the notification and takedown process’.
E.I.P.R. 2019, 41(2) at 70 and is reproduced by agreement with the publishers. This download is provided free for non-commercial use only. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited.

Open letter to MEPs: Article 13 of the Copyright Directive

Clicky Steve, , , , , , , , 1 Comment

The latest threat to both freedom of expression and the neutrality of the Internet is the proposed European ‘Copyright Directive’, and in particular, Article 13.

Much has been written on the dangers of Article 13, so I won’t repeat it here. Needless to say, if implemented, there would be serious consequences for how we interact online. It would be far easier for people to have content taken down from the Internet, or to prevent you from posting certain things, even if they have no real legal justification for doing so. In other words, you’d better get used to seeing this:

Facebook Link Blocked

You can (and should) write to your MEP to express concerns about the upcoming law. You can do so using sites such as saveyourinternet.eu, but I didn’t think their template letter or MEP search was particularly good, so I wrote my own. Feel free to modify and use the below language. You can find and contact your MEPs using https://www.writetothem.com/.

Attn:

  • David Martin MEP
  • David Coburn MEP
  • Catherine Stihler MEP
  • Nosheena Mobarik MEP
  • Ian Hudghton MEP
  • Alyn Smith MEP

Thursday 21 June 2018

Stephen McLeod Blythe
[address redacted]

Dear Catherine Stihler, Alyn Smith, Ian Hudghton, Nosheena Mobarik, David Martin and David Coburn,

I am a legal academic and digital rights advocate from Glasgow, Scotland. I write with respect to the so-called ‘Copyright Directive’, and ask that you stand up against the proposal.

My main area of concern regarding the proposed Directive lies in Article 13. While it does not specifically impose a requirement on intermediaries to introduce pre-screening mechanisms, the language does explicitly refer to ‘the use of effective content recognition technologies’. As a result, this approach is clearly seen as an appropriate norm.

There are many problems with content recognition technologies, which I will not waste your time with by reciting in full. However, the bottom line is that they are expensive to implement; ineffective; easily defeated; frequently mis-identify content; and do not understand context, or the concept of ‘fair use’. In my work I already see significant abuse of copyright laws by complainants who wish to silence critics, and any kind of automated system will simply compound this problem.

Should Article 13 go ahead unchanged, intermediaries will inevitably adopt ‘dumb’ filtering systems in order to reduce their liability, and the result will be a significant chilling effect on both freedom of expression, and free enterprise. The consequences will impact heavily both on individual rights, and the economy.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen McLeod Blythe LLB. LLM.

Facebook and Free Speech: Reinforcing the Echo Chamber

Clicky Steve, , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

In this Motherboard article, Vice yesterday highlighted some of the internal changes to Facebook’s policy on acceptable speech after the events of Charlottesville last year.

Facebook Free Speech Policy
Image via Motherboard. Included under the fair use doctrine.

Specifically, it was noted that Facebook distinguish between statements supporting a white nationalist ideology, and white supremacy, with the latter in particular considered to be associated with racism – something prohibited on the platform. In response, there have been arguments that this distinction is meaningless, and that Facebook is effectively allowing Nazis to operate on their network as a result.

Facebook infamously ‘curates’ what its users see through the use of algorithms, and they have faced ongoing criticisms that ‘echo chambers’ are created as a direct result. This was particularly true in light of both Donald Trump’s Presidential election victory, and the outcome of the EU membership referendum in the UK. On a personal note, it was something that first became obvious after the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.

With this in mind, the question becomes what people actually want or expect Facebook to be. On one hand, the possibility of anybody sharing far right or extremist ideologies is seen as abhorrent and unacceptable, but on the other, the cultivation of echo chambers that distort political and social reality is decried as irresponsible.

Unfortunately, you can’t break through an online bubble by only allowing that which you find inoffensive to be shared.

The obvious response here is that there is a difference between healthy debate and sharing views which are hateful. However, this is something of a liberal utopian ideal which doesn’t actually play out in practice. Argument is messy. Debate isn’t always healthy. People don’t always play fairly. All of this is self-evident and will remain true whenever those with opposing positions come into conflict. Arguably, those beliefs that are considered most heinous are precisely those which need to be heard, challenged, and resisted, and in the same vein, the areas online which foster these biases without question need to be opened up to opposition.

If all we want is Facebook to be a safe space to share pictures of our dogs and holiday photos, then that is one thing. However, that is never going to be the reality, irrespective of what some may claim. Whenever people have space to express themselves, they will share their views on how the world should be. If we want to avoid all of the problems that doing so within the so-called echo chambers brings, then we need to stop reinforcing them by banning the very opposing views that would break them apart in the first place.

Issues with Article 17 (‘Right to be Forgotten’) of the GDPR

Clicky Steve, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

With the GDPR’s deadline now almost upon us, one of the most talked about provisions has been the ‘Right to Erasure’ contained within Article 17.

Significantly expanding the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ doctrine established in the Google Spain case, Article 17 allows data subjects (i.e. you and I) to submit takedown requests to any organisation that collects and controls information on them.

There are a number of grounds under which people may seek to have data deleted, which cover a broad variety of circumstances. These include situations where the data is no longer necessary for the reasons it was collected; where it was unlawfully processed; where the subject withdraws their consent; as well as some others. The right is not unlimited, with exceptions where the collection and processing of the data is necessary in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression; where there is a specific legal obligation to retain the information; for reasons of public interest; etc.

Issues with Article 17

Despite some initial reservations, the GDPR (and Article 17 in particular) has generally been lauded as a victory for European citizens, who will gain far more control over what information companies hold on them than they ever previously have had. This is especially true given the arguably extra-territorial applicability, where any organisation that handles European data will be expected to comply.

However, there are a few specific issues arising from the construction of Article 17 that bear some further scrutiny. Rather than analyse the philosophical criticisms of the Right to Erasure, below I briefly look at some of the practical considerations that will need to be taken by data controllers when they receive such a Request for Erasure:

  1. Verification.
  2. Abuse, and a lack of formal requirements for removal requests.
  3. Article 85: Freedom of expression.

Verification of the Data Subject

Before giving effect to an Article 17 request, the controller must use all ‘reasonable measures’ to identify the identity of the requesting party. It is perhaps obvious that an organisation should not be deleting the accounts or other data of somebody without checking first to make sure that the person making that request is authorised to do so. However, this leaves open a number of questions about what this kind of verification will look like. In other words, what steps will be considered ‘reasonable’ under the terms of the law? Will courts begin to see arguments over online platforms account recovery procedures as a result of a denial of access to the fundamental right of privacy via the GDPR? What metrics will a data subject be able/expected to provide in order to discover their associated data? i.e. while it might be easy to request information relating to your e-mail address, what about other identifiers such as IP addresses, or names? These are questions that do not have clear answers, and will inevitably lead to an uneven application of the law, dependent on the situation.

Abuse, and a Lack of Formal Procedural Requirements for Erasure Requests

It should be self-evident at this stage that any statutory removal mechanisms will be open to abuse by parties determined to have content removed from the Internet, and in that regard, Article 17 is no different. However, there is a common misconception that the Right to Erasure gives people the right to stop any mention of them online – especially speech that is critical of them, or that they disagree with. This is not the case, and Article 17 is not crafted as a dispute resolution mechanism for defamation claims (that would be the E-Commerce Directive). These facts don’t stop people from citing the GDPR incorrectly though, and it can quickly become difficult to deal with content removal demands as a result.

The problem is compounded by the fact that there are no formal procedural requirements for an Article 17 request to be valid, unlike the notice and takedown procedure of the DMCA, or even the ECD. Requests do not have to mention the GDPR, or even Right to be Erasure specifically, and perhaps even more surprisingly, the requests don’t have to be made in writing, as verbal expressions are acceptable.

While the reasons for the lack of specific notice requirements is clearly in order to give the maximum amount of protection to data subjects (the lack of requirement for writing was apparently in order to allow people to easily ask for the removal of their data from call centres over the phone), it seems to ignore the accompanying problems with such an approach. The lack of clarity for the general public around what exactly the Right to Erasure includes, along with the lack of procedural checks and balances means that it will be increasingly difficult for organisations to identify and give effect to legitimate notices. This is especially true for online platforms that already receive a high number of reports. While many of these are often nonsense or spam, they will require far greater scrutiny in order to ensure that they aren’t actually badly worded Article 17 requests that might lead to liability.

If we look at the statistics on other notice and takedown processes such as that in the DMCA (the WordPress.com transparency report, for example), we can see that the levels of incomplete or abusive notices received are high. The implementation of even basic formal requirements would provide some minimum level of quality control over the requests, and allow organisations identifiers to efficiently categorise and give effect to legitimate Article 17 requests, rather than the prospect of having to consider any kind of report received through the lens of the GDPR.

Article 85: Freedom of expression

As mentioned earlier, a controller is not obliged to remove data where its continued retention is ‘necessary for reasons of freedom of expression and information’. The obvious question then becomes under what grounds this should be interpreted, and we find some guidance in Article 85 of the GDPR. Unfortunately however, it doesn’t say all that much:

‘Member States shall by law reconcile the right to the protection of personal data pursuant to this Regulation with the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression.’

This appears to leave the task of determining how the balance will be made to individual Member States. Whilst this isn’t unusual in European legislation, it means that the standard will vary depending on where the organisation is based, and or where the data subject resides. At the time of writing, it isn’t clear how different Member States will address this reconciliation. Despite freedom of expression’s status as a fundamental right in European law, it is afforded scant consideration, and thus weak protection under the GDPR, preferring to defer to national law, which simply isn’t good enough. Far stronger statements and guarantees should have been provided.

Over Compliance

Unfortunately, the amount of extra work required to analyse and deal with these requests as a result of the law’s construction – along with the high financial penalties detailed in Article 83 – mean that it is likely that many organisations will simply resort to removing data, even where there is no lawful basis for the request, or requirement for them to do so.

We may fairly confidently speculate that the response from many data controllers will be to take a conservative approach to the GDPR’s requirements, and thus be less likely to push back on any potentially dubious requests as a result. Insistent complainants may find that they are able to have speech silenced without any legitimate legal basis simply out of fear or misunderstanding on the part of third party organisations.

With a well publicised and generally misunderstood right to removal, lack of procedural requirements, and a reliance on intermediaries to protect our rights to freedom of expression, we may find ourselves with more control over our own data, but with far less control over how we impart and receive information online.

—

Header image by ‘portal gda‘ on Flickr. Used under CC BY NC-SA 2.0 license.

Nazi Pugs Fuck Off

Clicky Steve, , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

One of the latest cases to spark intense debate around freedom of expression happens to fall in my own back yard. The facts of the ‘nazi pug’ case concerned one Mark Meechan, aka ‘Count Dankula’, who filmed himself training his girlfriend’s dog to react to various phrases such as ‘gas the Jews’, and then posted it on YouTube. In his own words:

“My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is, and so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing that I could think of, which is a Nazi”

Meechan was subsequently charged and convicted in a Scottish Sheriff Court under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it an offence to (publicly) communicate a ‘message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’.

Count Dankula

Offensive speech should not be a criminal offence

The accused argued that the video was intended as a joke to noise up his girlfriend, as evidenced by the disclaimer at the outset. This position was rejected by the court, who stated that humour was ‘no magic wand’ to escape prosecution, and that any determination of context was for them to decide.

In passing the sentence, the Sheriff brought up the fact that the accused’s girlfriend didn’t even subscribe to his YouTube channel, and so claimed that as a result the notion that the escapade was in fact intended as a private joke didn’t hold any water. This is important as it demonstrates a deep cultural ignorance of how people communicate in an age dominated by online platforms, but also for what may well be a more interesting point: That the actions could only be classed as an offence under the Communications Act by dint of the fact that the video was posted on a ‘public communications network’. In other words, if the same ‘joke’ had been demonstrated at a house party, down the pub, or even on stage in front of hundreds of people, then it could not have brought about the same kind of prosecution.

This brings about two questions:

  1. Should there be any distinction between posting a video online (or via telephone), and making statements in person? If so, why?
  2. Should anybody ever face jail time for making ‘offensive’ statements?

These are questions that can only realistically be properly addressed by Parliament – not the Sheriff court, though one would have hoped that they would have taken a more liberal approach to statutory interpretation, or that the Procurator Fiscal would have had more foresight to not pursue a conviction.

A bad sense of humour should not be enough to justify the possibility of a criminal offence. Further, even if the video was in fact an expression of a genuine conviction (which has not been at issue in this case), then it still should not warrant the possibility of jail time – especially not when the distinction lies on the fact that the statements were made on a ‘public communications network’ rather than in person. Remember, this was not a question of ‘incitement’, but simply offence.

Nazis are not your friends

It appears that in many ways, the court were bound by the statutory terms, and that the 2003 law itself is inadequate, to say the least. However, there is another element to this tale that is worth discussing. Namely, that individuals such as the former leader of the so called English Defence League have come out to associate themselves with the issue, and that not enough has been done to reject those attempts.

The support of the far right is not particularly surprising, as they are increasingly taking up the bastion of free expression to justify their odious positions. I is also understandable that when faced with what you perceive as an unwarranted criminal prosecution that you would welcome any support that you can get, or that the media would try to draw connections where there are none. However, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. If arseholes such as Tommy Robinson whose views you claim to be diametrically opposed to try to co-opt your situation for their own political ends, you have a duty to clearly, loudly, and publicly tell them to fuck off. When the far right started to infiltrate punk culture based on the premise of certain shared values, the Dead Kennedys responded in no uncertain terms.

I don’t and won’t claim to know the politics of the accused in this case, but the situation should be a warning for all who consider ourselves to sit on the liberal end of the spectrum: Be wary of those who seek to use a shared belief in freedom of expression as a trojan horse. Yes, fight for the right of those you disagree with to speak, but don’t let the crows trick their way into your nest as a result.

Meechan has indicated plans to appeal the conviction in order to make a point about freedom of speech, although it is unclear at this point under what grounds he will do so. Either way, whilst this is something I would support prima facie, it is becoming increasingly tough to do so with the knowledge that each development gives people such as the EDL a platform without any real challenge.

For a more in depth analysis of the law involved in this case, have a look at this post from thebarristerblogger.com.

P.S. I don’t blame the pug.

Laughing in the face of Terror

Clicky Steve, , , , , Leave a comment

With the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London over the past week or so, it’s fair to say that the UK’s resilience has been tested. With the General Election taking place tomorrow, and Theresa May promising to ‘rip up the Human Rights act’ to introduce sweeping restrictions on the Internet, and strengthen anti-terrorist legislation, it remains to be seem how things will pan out.

You can never completely overshadow the horrific consequences of fatal attacks where innocent people lose their lives, but through the dark fog of the events themselves, stories have emerged that show true humanity, rather than the bleak nihilism of the terrorists. Stories of people rushing to the defence and aid of others; fearlessly tackling armed attackers, and embracing strangers.

A couple of examples of this that have really stood out for me in particular demonstrate the best, and most ‘British’ response imaginable. In the first, a man seen ambling casually away from a pub where the attackers had struck was hailed as a spirit of defiance for taking his pint with him:

Screen Shot 2017-06-07 at 14.52.45.png

Beer is so expensive in London mind you, that leaving a full pint behind would be the real madness.

And then, there was this guy… who when confronted with three knife wielding attackers screaming ‘This is for Allah!’, replied by rushing to fight them bare handed, shouting: ‘Fuck you, I’m Millwall!’, allowing others the chance to escape the scene. For those not familiar with Millwall football club, this sort of behaviour is perfectly normal.

Screen Shot 2017-06-07 at 14.54.51.png

Speaking later after surviving multiple stab wounds all over his body, he said:

I thought, ‘I need to take the p*** out of these b******s’.

For me, this sums things up pretty beautifully. The point of these attacks is to make people afraid; to make nowhere feel safe… to withdraw in terror to an authoritarian regime that results in us turning on our neighbours and friends… but it’s tough to be afraid when you are laughing your ass off.

Those of us in Glasgow remember our own brush with ISIS well…

johnsmeaton.jpg

These attacks are always heartbreaking, and we’ll mourn the people we lose, but we also need to turn things on their head, find the humour in any situation, and laugh. Laugh right in the face of those who think they can make us scared to go outside, or scared of our Muslim friends, because their attempts to destroy who we are are laughable – and if there’s one thing the British are good at, it’s taking the piss out of those who take themselves too seriously.

Shopify, Breitbart, and Freedom of Speech.

Clicky Steve, , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Tonight I came across an article on TechCrunch in response to an open letter from Tobias Lütke, CEO of e-commerce platform Shopify, in which he defends the company’s decision to continue hosting Breitbart’s online shop. Breitbart being the infamous far right publication of which Steve Bannon was heavily involved with.

After sustained criticism, Lütke explains in the post entitled ‘In Support of Free Speech’ that based upon a belief that ‘commerce is a powerful, underestimated form of expression’, it would be wrong to effectively censor merchants by shutting down their shops as the result of differing political views.

Reporting on the letter, TechCrunch shared their post to Facebook with the text: ‘Shopify’s CEO thinks his platform has a responsibility to continue hosting Breitbart’s store – here’s why he’s wrong.’

Screen Shot 2017-02-10 at 02.29.57.png

I was curious to see the arguments that would be proffered as to why the decision was wrong, but was ultimately left wanting. Here are the reasons given, as far as I could make out:

  1. Lütke is grossly overestimating the role of a private e-commerce platform in providing and protecting freedom of expression.
  2. Shopify cannot ‘censor’ anybody, as they are not an emanation of the State.
  3. Justifying the continued hosting of merchants who have extreme views for freedom of speech reasons is wrong, as freedom of speech does not apply to private organisations.
  4. As a private company, Shopify are not legally required to provide a platform to anybody.
  5. Shopify’s Terms of Service allow them to terminate the account of any user at any time.

In response, here’s why TechCrunch are wrong:

None of the reasons given actually explain why Shopify shouldn’t continue to host Breitbart.

Read over them again, then check out the full article here. Despite heavily criticising Shopify, and stating that Lütke is ‘wrong’, TechCrunch don’t engage at all with the heart of the issue. No, Shopify are not legally required to host the Breitbart shop, and yes, quite obviously their Terms of Service are quite obviously worded in such a way to give them that discretion in the event of any legal challenge, but that’s hardly a surprise.

Here’s the big question that went unanswered: why should Shopify not host Breitbart?Lütke hits the nail on the head with the following challenge, which the TechCrunch article completely fails to even acknowledge:

When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code? Where would it begin and end? Who gets to decide what can be sold and what can’t?

Rather than attempt to address this fundamental issue, TechCrunch essentially just argue that Shopify should kick Breitbart off of their platform because, er, well, legally there’s nothing to stop them. A pretty poor argument at best.

Protecting freedom of speech isn’t just down to the State.

Firstly, I’m not sure where this idea that censorship is only something that the State can give effect to comes from. It means to forbid or to ban something; to suppress speech. The source doesn’t have anything to do with it.

Screen Shot 2017-02-10 at 03.24.28.png

Secondly, there is a lot of confusion surrounding freedom of speech and the relation to the State, even from those who purport to understand the dynamic. To clear some things up, the following are true:

  • Freedom of speech law (generally) only protects citizens from the acts of State actors.
  • Private online service providers (generally) have no obligation to protect the freedom of speech rights of their users, or to give them a platform for expression.

However, to assert that a platform cannot justify their actions based on freedom of speech considerations, or to willingly strive to uphold those principles on the basis of the above is a non sequitur. Additionally, just because you can’t threaten legal action on a freeedom of speech argument against Facebook if they take down your status update, that doesn’t mean it is wrong to argue that Facebook should be doing more to consider and protect those values.

Just as we would not expect a hotel owner to be able to refuse to allow a same sex couple to share a bed, or a pub to knock back someone based purely on the colour of their skin, it is nonsense to pretend that we have no expectations of private organisations to abide by certain shared societal values.

Without touching on the claims around the importance of e-commerce as a vehicle for expression, it seems that in a world where we are increasingly reliant on private entities to provide our virtual town square equivalents, and where we expect certain values to be upheld, arguably platforms such as Shopify have an increasing moral obligation to protect (as far as is possible) the principles that are the cornerstone of our Democracies.

 

 

Yes, Protest Does Matter.

Clicky Steve, , , , , , , , 1 Comment

In the past week, we have seen peaceful protests around the world, in response to the actions taken by Donald Trump, as he has assumed the American Presidency.

Despite not having attended any of the demonstrations myself, I’ve been troubled by the fervent reaction against those who have done so, and the poor arguments that have been made against speaking out. So, without passing comment on the content of any of Trump’s policies or actions, I’ve decided to address the common criticisms publicly:

1. Protesting doesn’t make any difference.

I almost can’t believe that this statement is still being uttered in 2017, after all that has been written, and after we have seen and to-this-day celebrate the outcomes of peaceful protest in the past.

The ultimate goal of protest is obviously to bring about change, but few who take part in any single act of resistance are naive enough to believe that that one particular event will have devastating political ramifications on its own. Movements are built over time, and are successful by building the pressure on those in power.

In this particular situation, there is a real chance that sustained protest can have an impact on the policies of the Trump administration. The Republican party is not full of evil people, and many viscerally disagree with his approach to many issues, but at present feel unable to speak up against them. If all these people hear is silent indifference to what is going on, they are far less likely to have the courage to take the first steps themselves in opposition.

For many, even if there is absolutely zero chance of political change, demonstrations are still immensely important. First and foremost, they are about standing up and publicly stating that you refuse to quietly accept actions that you fundamentally disagree with, and may otherwise be powerless to stop. It’s about demonstrating to other people who facing the brunt of the effects that they are not alone. That’s why they are called ‘demonstrations’.

I won’t draw comparisons between Trump and Hitler at this point, but I do find it rather curious how one of the biggest questions people have when looking back at history is how the German population could possibly have let fascism take hold, seemingly without much protest. I wonder how many people were dismissing those who spoke up, with the same argument: ‘Protesting won’t make a difference’.

2. It’s a foreign country. It doesn’t have any impact on you or people you know. Focus on your own issues.

There are a few constitutent parts to this. Firstly, this kind of statement is often made in a blanket fashion, completely ignoring the personal relationships that the person on the receiving end may have. Where their wife may come from; where their friends may live; where the company their work for is based, for example.

Secondly, even if a person has zero personal ties to the US, the idea that we could close our eyes and ears to what happens outside of our country is a non-sequitur. In fact, it’s the worst kind of nationalism. Following the argument through logically, no Scottish person should ever speak about the evils of apartheid – because it was a South African issue. Neither should the UK have gotten involved in the Second World War. There are innumerable examples of why this doesn’t hold water.

There is a valid criticism to be made of people who only care and speak up about what they see on the news in a foreign country, whilst acting completely indifferent about what is happening in their own back garden. However, that sort of criticism can only be made with in depth knowledge of a person and their motives, and is certainly not something that should be applied with a broad brush to people whose background you have no idea about. Just because somebody is concerned about the actions of Trump, doesn’t mean that they aren’t equally as passionate about the right wing agenda of the UK Government, or that they volunteer at a local foodbank every night.

All of this aside, the reality is that what happens in America does impact what happens in the UK. The policies and rhetoric of the most powerful man on Earth, who leads the biggest military superpower in modern history, who happens to be our supposedly closest ally, definitely has repercussions around the globe. To pretend otherwise is simply foolish.

To bring it home, so to speak: the ‘solidarity’ word is one that comes with a lot of baggage, but it is exactly what protest is often about: making a statement about what kind of society you want and believe in, even in spite of everything that may be happening elsewhere. It’s about saying: ‘The most powerful nation on the planet may be targetting refugees, but we won’t accept those same actions here.’ If all the protests in Glasgow yesterday achieved was to make a single refugee feel more welcome and secure in their adopted city, then they were already a success.

3. The American people chose to vote for Trump. Get over it.

This is one of the most ridiculous assertions of the lot. The idea that once a political party or candidate wins an election that they are infallible, and should be immune from any sort of criticism is ludicrous. At best it is complete hypocrisy on the part of those uttering this nonsense, and at worst an extremely dangerous perspective, that results in human rights abuses in countries like Turkey and Russia.

4. Protesters are just idiots who are virtue signalling whilst contributing exactly zero to the cause they’re apparently so passionate about.

This is pretty much a word for word comment from someone who didn’t approve of the demonstrations held in Glasgow yesterday, but the language is similar to a lot of others.

Here’s how ‘virtue signalling’ is defined:

virtue signalling (US virtue signaling)

noun [mass noun]

the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue: it’s noticeable how often virtue signalling consists of saying you hate things | standing on the sidelines saying how awful the situation is does nothing except massage your ego by virtue signalling.

On its own, the phrase is seemingly innocuous, but more and more frequently it is now being used to dismiss people who are taking a position that others disagree with, without them having to actually intellectually engage with that position. It’s become one of the lazy phrases like ‘fake news’ that I can’t stand, as it doesn’t actually mean anything in practice.

Given that the phrase is based on intent, the only way ‘virtue signalling’ could accurately be ascribed to those who chose to demonstrate against Trump or his actions, would be if the person using it knew those intentions. In other words, they would need to know the specific motivating factors involved… something that is clearly impossible when applied to a group.

It’s probably worth being crystal clear on this: disagreeing with your position doesn’t mean that somebody is ‘virtue signalling’. It means they disagree with your position. Challenge them on their arguments, not with some spurious empty phrase that only serves to shut down discussions that you can’t handle.

Trump image by Gage Skidmore – used under CC-BY-SA 2.0 license

Trump, Prostitutes, and 4chan. Still want to ban sites that publish fake news?

Clicky Steve, , , , Leave a comment

Today the big story on the web is that a story leaked from a ‘British intelligence officer’ about Russia blackmailing Donald Trump, published by BuzzFeed, and then dutifully re-posted by other major established media outlets was allegedly made up by posters on 4chan.

Whilst the articles state that the claims are ‘unverified’, and ‘contain errors’, it appears that there has been very little in the way of fact checking or corroboration of sources going on. Indeed, publishing allegations without due dilligence is exactly the operational basis of other sites that don’t fall under the banner of ‘credible’ media. The fact is that the outcome in either case is the same: either willingly or blindly (through a desire to publish content first to drive advertising revenue), these sites are spreading misinformation. Looking at the Mirror’s coverage, one would be forgiven for thinking that the info was at least partially credible:

Screen Shot 2017-01-11 at 12.46.40.png

It’s all too easy to scoff at the Mirror, or BuzzFeed. Nobody takes them seriously after all; everybody knows that! That clearly isn’t actually the case, and it demonstrates the problem with the reactionary drive towards ‘banning’ or filtering sites that publish fake news from online platforms.

Of course, these claims to have made up the story could very well be made up themselves… but that doesn’t invalidate the criticism. If anything, it highlights the issue with asking or expecting third parties such as online service providers to filter out untrue content.

To echo the questions I raised in my previous post on this topic: Exactly what constitutes fake news, where do we draw the line, at what point do ‘credible’ news sources lose that credibility, and who makes those determinations? Should BuzzFeed articles be removed from Facebook? What about The Mirror? What about CNN? Maybe only articles claiming to have made up fake news should be treated as fake news. Where does it stop?

For an interesting read on this that was shared by my colleague Davide recently, check out this page:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/08/blaming-fake-news-not-the-answer-democracy-crisis

It only gets worse when charges of fake news come from the media, which, due to the dismal economics of digital publishing, regularly run dubious “news” of their own. Take the Washington Post, that rare paper that claims to be profitable these days. What it has gained in profitability, it seems to have lost in credibility.

Edit: I published this earlier today before Trump’s press conference, and felt compelled to update it as a result of what he said. Responding to questions from the media, he apparently decided to pick up the ‘fake news’ mantle:

When Jim Acosta, Senior White House Correspondent for CNN, attempted to ask Trump a question, the President-elect refused to answer. “Not you. Your organization is terrible,” Trump said. “I’m not going to give you a question, you are fake news.”
So now Trump has appropriated the term ‘fake news’ to thwart off any criticism without response. That’s what happens when you set up an empty vessel as something that is inherently wrong with no real definition. This should have been easy to avoid. – (source)

This is precisely why setting up a straw man term such as ‘fake news’ is so dangerous, because an empty vessel that is inherently bad without any clear definition leaves the power in the hands of those who want to wield it for their own ends. If we want to try and combat ‘fake news’, we first need to understand what it is we are fighting against. Otherwise, the question becomes whether it is our version of fake news that is bad, or Donald Trump’s?