Targeted Censorship, Autocracies, and Activism

This caught my attention as I was scrolling through my Twitter feed earlier: apparently Twitter is censoring specific accounts at the requests of various governments.  Twitter censored the highest number of accounts (758) on Germany's behalf, followed by Turkey with 721.  France came in at a distant third with 261. It makes sense at first glance, given that right-wing nationalism is on the rise in several countries, doesn't it? History is full of events where a charismatic orator with a toxic message and a massive following, and mass slaughter, form two links on a chain of events.  The link between the two is well-established, so wouldn't it make sense to be proactive and silence the messengers before they inflict any serious damage?  I doubt it's coincidence that Germany has the highest number of censored accounts; they're arguably more aware than any country of the dangers of incendiary rhetoric.

And to be honest, I share Germany's point to some extent.  I'd be perfectly fine if every social media platform blocked racist (excuse me, "alt-right") agitators like Richard Spencer or Steve Bannon.  Heed the lessons of history, free speech be damned.  I bet a lot of people would agree.

However. . . .

That's a knee-jerk reaction.  As good, even necessary, as it sounds, it's a horrible idea once you think about it for a few minutes.  Do you remember which country was #2 on the list of censored accounts? (You forgot already? Good lord, your memory is awful.) Turkey, for those of you who didn't know, is at risk of sliding into an autocracy, according to both the Middle East Policy Council and the Council of Europe's Venice Commission.  Twitter's censorship looks very different when it's done on behalf of a potential autocrat intent on consolidating power.

The United States isn't Turkey, someone might say.  That's true; but consider these two things.  First, there's an old saying that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter; so it's not unreasonable to think that a person or group considered an activist in one person's eyes could be seen as a subversive to someone else.  Censoring a white nationalist's account might seem desirable, but what if someone in government wants to censor an environmentalist group? Or a pro-gun organization? What if a future president decided to censor the NRA or the ACLU?

For an actual example, go research the broad range of groups targeted under the FBI's COINTELPRO program.  In addition to targeting credible threats like the KKK, it also zeroed in on civil rights figures and workers' rights groups.  Imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today, and the US government convinced Twitter to shut down his Twitter account.  As a civil rights leader, he would have been undermined in a very important way.  Could that have kept the civil rights movement from ever gaining momentum? Possibly.  Now you see how censoring Twitter can be a potent means of suppressing dissent; especially since it's also effective at growing protest movements.  Occupy Wall Street used it.  So did the Arab Spring, initially.  This underscores how important Twitter can be for achieving social change.

Second, people can be gullible.  Like, really, really gullible - especially if there's a perceived danger.  Sometimes, that gullibility can lead to tragic consequences. The point is that it's not farfetched at all to imagine that someone in a position of authority says, "So-and-so is a threat and needs to be censored," and a lot of people will unquestioningly fall in line.  That's usually the prelude to something worse.


I do get it.  The growing right-wing nationalist movement is concerning, and if there's a chance to neutralize it before it really takes hold, shouldn't we take it? Look at how much chaos the burgeoning movement has created already, and how much it could potentially stir up.  It's pretty tempting to just censor them, so let's do it.  No, because by going for the quick & easy solution, we create greater problems down the road.  Common sense tells you that censorship is a key tool of oppressive regimes, so as satisfying as slapping a muzzle on the alt-right's digital presence sounds (and believe me, I'm all for that), it's guaranteed to come back and haunt us all.