Tick-tick-tick--click! Tick-tick-tick--click! Tick-tick-tick--click!
Imagine you're living in a major European city in the summer of 1914. Paris, Vienna, Belgrade, Sofia - it doesn't really matter which one. How would you react to news about the Archduke's assassination? Would you immediately start preparing for the coming war, or would you keep going about your daily life as usual? It seems counter-intuitive now, based on how inevitable World War I looks in hindsight, but at the time, a lot of people weren't concerned about the assassination setting in motion the events it did - partially because there had already been a handful of crises already, and they ultimately ended civilly, without a larger war breaking out.
* In 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed part of Bosnia, Russia then menaced Austria-Hungary, and Germany menaced Russia in response.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* In 1912, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia teamed up to acquire territory from the Ottoman Empire.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* In 1913, Serbia and Greece turned on their former ally Bulgaria, in a dispute over the spoils of their victory from the previous year.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* Then, in 1914. . .tick-tick-tick--BANG!
Treating the Archduke's assassination as an unimportant event seems more understandable now, doesn't it? That's the tricky thing about historically significant events: you usually don't know which ones will end up being minor tremors and which ones will blow up into unmanageable crises until later. Maybe much later. And even when times are uneventful and dull, there are always multiple parts of the system at risk of careening out of control. Think of it like driving an old, high-mileage car. It's been through a lot of wear-and-tear, so because of its advanced age, there are multiple potential points of failure. A belt at risk of snapping, a frayed wire, a leaky gasket. Every time you drive it somewhere, you're adding stress to an already strained system.
Nations are like that. There are countless moving pieces, and at any given time, one of them could break down with catastrophic consequences. A crop failure. A terrorist attack. A natural disaster. A financial collapse. There's a constant undercurrent of chaos flowing through a seemingly calm and orderly facade. So it's natural for people to ignore or downplay the potential for chaos constantly unfolding around them. The people who can't or won't exhaust themselves, mentally and emotionally. (They also irritate everyone around them with their constant "The end is nigh" pronouncements - or so I'm told.) There's a danger in that complacency, though. It leads people to assume that because they survived a past crisis, they will also survive the current one.
We're living in one of those uncertain moments right now. Right-wing authoritarianism is on the rise multiple areas throughout the world. Brazil just elected a far-right politician as president. In Germany, a far-right movement is gaining popularity, and Angela Merkel's retirement signals an uncertain future. There's also a far-right resurgence in other parts of Europe. And America, which has long held the title of "Leader of the Free World," is seeing its democratic institutions being eroded from within. Will this be a temporary uptick, or will it lead to a long-term erosion of democracy? Will the international order that has been responsible for over seventy years of relative peace endure, or will we call these "the inter-war years" someday? We can't know for sure, because we're in the middle of these events. But there's no doubt that the storm clouds are gathering.
Tick-tick-tick. . .
Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)