In 220 BC China, Qin Shi Huang became the first emperor, after uniting all the other the Warring States. In order to deceive those after him that he was the alpha of Chinese history, he, in 213 BC, burned hundreds of scholarly works, ranging from literature to history to philosophy. He created the illusion that only records produced by him and his administration were factual. In addition to this, he persecuted many intellectuals and writers, allegedly killing many of them.
In 1258, the House of Wisdom, a prominent library in Baghdad, was destroyed by the Mongols in the Siege of Baghdad. The books from the House were thrown into the River Tigris; so many books were destroyed this way that the river ran black with the ink from the books. The effect of this was the end of the Islamic Golden Age, a period which had seen great advancement in scholarship by Muslim intellectuals.
In the 1930s, Hitler and the Nazis burned all literature and art deemed degenerate. This included books that were:
In 1984, Big Brother continually manipulates the events of the past in order to fulfill an agenda. He does this by changing language (he introduces Newspeak); he does this by constantly re-writing books, newspapers, reports and other published items. He does this by actively censoring dissidents and publishing his own newspaper.
In the modern West, government censorship is seen as a relic of the past. Though censorship still exists, through hate speech laws, it does not compare to previous levels. The physical public square is now truly open to all. However, the modern public square (social media) is subject to great censorship; not from the government, but from the corporations themselves.
Recently, Facebook banned a number of journalists and public figures, including Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulous and Louis Farrakhan. All these figures are populists. All these figures, except Farrakhan, are explicitly right-wing in their outlook. These figures (all but Farrakhan) have been consistently misrepresented as white supremacist, with the Guardian claiming that they promoted white nationalism. None of these figures are racist, xenophobic or hateful towards a specific group (with the exception of Farrakhan, who has described white people as a "race of devils"). Even if these figures did promote hatred towards certain religious and ethnic groups, Facebook should still refuse to terminate their accounts. Why? Censorship breeds resentment. When voices are silenced, their plans of evil are secreted, and therefore they are much harder to debate and argue against.
A Facebook spokesperson has stated that, "We've always banned individuals that promote or engage in violence or hate, regardless of ideology." This is but a falsehood. The group Smash Racism DC (which sounds noble, but is violent) went to journalist Tucker Carlson's home and threatened his family, yet they still have an active account. These bans are ideologically motivated; the banning of Farrakhan does not disprove this. The banning of Farrakhan is a mask for this anti-conservative, pro-Establishment agenda. These are akin to modern-day book burnings as:
In his April 2018 congressional hearing, Zuckerberg expressed the idea that Facebook was, at its core, a technology company. This is not the case. Facebook can now, if they wish to do so, determine the results of elections. The company, alongside the rest of Silicon Valley, are now political machines; they have banned figures that were instrumental to Trump's victory over Clinton in 2016. Facebook and its subsidiaries (Instagram, Whatsapp and Messenger) had 2.38 billion monthly active users in the first quarter of 2019. The majority of news is now shared through the platform; news can be censored by the platform.
In 1258, the House of Wisdom, a prominent library in Baghdad, was destroyed by the Mongols in the Siege of Baghdad. The books from the House were thrown into the River Tigris; so many books were destroyed this way that the river ran black with the ink from the books. The effect of this was the end of the Islamic Golden Age, a period which had seen great advancement in scholarship by Muslim intellectuals.
In the 1930s, Hitler and the Nazis burned all literature and art deemed degenerate. This included books that were:
- communist/ socialist
- classical liberal
- religious
- written by Jewish authors
- pacifist
- written by authors from nations that might denigrate Germany
- works that denigrated the German people
- supportive of the Weimar Republic
Many prominent Western authors had their works destroyed. Persecuted authors included the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Oscar Wilde, James Joyce, Ernest Hemmingway, HG Wells and Victor Hugo. Authors from Russia were also subject to this new campaign of destruction. Authors such as Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Isaac Babel disappeared from Germany.
The effect of these numerous book burnings was severe. Scholarship was struck, knowledge was knocked down and culture was crucified. Hitler's book burnings meant that a generation of German schoolchildren had no opportunity to read great writers and that the rest of the public were bullied into believing that these works were detrimental to the new German society. The destruction of the House of Wisdom set human knowledge back hundreds of years and eradicated elements of culture. Qin's book burnings was a successful attempt to ensure that all after him believed that he was the first in history. These three periods illustrate that when books are destroyed, society is set back. We become less knowledgeable, more irrational, less skeptical and oblivious to agenda. When books are destroyed, the past is controlled. As George Orwell put it,
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.George Orwell, in his novel 1984
In 1984, Big Brother continually manipulates the events of the past in order to fulfill an agenda. He does this by changing language (he introduces Newspeak); he does this by constantly re-writing books, newspapers, reports and other published items. He does this by actively censoring dissidents and publishing his own newspaper.
In the modern West, government censorship is seen as a relic of the past. Though censorship still exists, through hate speech laws, it does not compare to previous levels. The physical public square is now truly open to all. However, the modern public square (social media) is subject to great censorship; not from the government, but from the corporations themselves.
Recently, Facebook banned a number of journalists and public figures, including Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulous and Louis Farrakhan. All these figures are populists. All these figures, except Farrakhan, are explicitly right-wing in their outlook. These figures (all but Farrakhan) have been consistently misrepresented as white supremacist, with the Guardian claiming that they promoted white nationalism. None of these figures are racist, xenophobic or hateful towards a specific group (with the exception of Farrakhan, who has described white people as a "race of devils"). Even if these figures did promote hatred towards certain religious and ethnic groups, Facebook should still refuse to terminate their accounts. Why? Censorship breeds resentment. When voices are silenced, their plans of evil are secreted, and therefore they are much harder to debate and argue against.
A Facebook spokesperson has stated that, "We've always banned individuals that promote or engage in violence or hate, regardless of ideology." This is but a falsehood. The group Smash Racism DC (which sounds noble, but is violent) went to journalist Tucker Carlson's home and threatened his family, yet they still have an active account. These bans are ideologically motivated; the banning of Farrakhan does not disprove this. The banning of Farrakhan is a mask for this anti-conservative, pro-Establishment agenda. These are akin to modern-day book burnings as:
- the authors of controversial content is being destroyed
- people are being banned from sharing the content of dissidents
Many mainstream media companies, such as Bloomberg, NPR and The Atlantic are representing figures like Watson and Loomer as "controversial". It is incredibly dire that someone who acknowledges that the West, its institutions and its culture is the best, is represented as controversial. This process is authoritarian in nature and is redolent of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, a list of banned books the Catholic Church deemed heretical.
Social media is the new forum via which ideas are expressed and debated. It connects people across time zones, borders and continents. It is the new medium by which information is shared; the reign of the book is, unfortunately, behind us. Social media is the new public square and some voices are being prevented from making their voices heard.
In his April 2018 congressional hearing, Zuckerberg expressed the idea that Facebook was, at its core, a technology company. This is not the case. Facebook can now, if they wish to do so, determine the results of elections. The company, alongside the rest of Silicon Valley, are now political machines; they have banned figures that were instrumental to Trump's victory over Clinton in 2016. Facebook and its subsidiaries (Instagram, Whatsapp and Messenger) had 2.38 billion monthly active users in the first quarter of 2019. The majority of news is now shared through the platform; news can be censored by the platform.
Should Big Tech, which is increasing in size and influence, be allowed to monopolise the internet in such a manner? Should the government be in the business of ensuring that free speech is protected online? These questions will have to be answered. Answers must be found. Whose rights come first? Private companies or private citizens?
Comments
Post a Comment