weekly
Written by: Wu Huansun Huang Yunna
2021-01-18 17:22
The last update date: 2021-01-18 17:22
The U.S. Capitol riots hit the "Democracy Beacon", and the defeated President Trump accused of "inciting riots" was banned from speaking by the three major social media Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. As a result, heated discussions about "Internet giant hegemony" were triggered. Driven by Trump’s supporters, a large wave of "social media immigration" has been set off; and Hong Kong, which is as deep as the United States in the quagmire of "political tearing", has also responded enthusiastically and actively "migrating" to another. A social platform MeWe.
However, many "immigration" justifications are simply vented out of ideological opposition and political sentiment. While defeating one type of hegemony, they have established another type of hegemony in disguise, but they have never seriously reflected on how to limit the monopoly of resources of the "Internet giants", How to prevent social tearing, how to regain information autonomy.
Many analysts believe that the turmoil on Capitol Hill in the United States originated from the rise of populists under the intensification of social contradictions, and the prevalence of social media is a huge driver of this social unrest. Therefore, in addition to the "battlefield" of Capitol Hill, different social media platforms The gunpowder has long been filled.
Recently, Trump, who was suspected of "inciting riots", was banned from speaking on the grounds of "public safety" by Facebook, Twitter, etc., setting off a large wave of "social media immigration."
(Profile picture)
As early as the end of last year, during the US presidential election, conservatives and Trump supporters have from time to time accused the tech giants controlled by Silicon Valley elites of "partializing the Democratic Party" and "censoring election information," such as restricting Trump's publication. Some posts even add certain tags to their posts to remind users that the content needs to be verified, etc., so they mobilized supporters to start anew and move to new social platforms such as Parler, Gab, and MeWe; until recently they were suspected of "inciting The "riot" Trump was banned from speaking by Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram on grounds of "public safety", and it has set off a large wave of "social media immigration"—for example, MeWe has accumulated more than 16 million downloads so far and has been accused of After Parler, who had not taken measures to limit the spread of inciting violent posts, was removed from the shelves by Apple and Google, 1 million registered users were added within three days, and Hong Kong, like the United States, is deeply mired in "political tearing" It was even more enthusiastic, and MeWe downloads continued to rank among the top three.
The problem is that in this heated discussion about "Internet giant hegemony", it seems that there are too many plausible false propositions, so that most users fail to escape the ideological opposition and the catharsis of political sentiment, and take a good look at the technology network market. The huge crisis under oligopoly, such as controlling the dissemination of information to affect the political game situation, using "algorithms" to create "echo corridors" to win the hearts of users while exacerbating ethnic tears, etc. If you rush to "immigrants" to defeat a hegemony , May establish another kind of hegemony.
"Immigration wave" will only thicken the stratosphere
Therefore, in order to fundamentally "break" this "hegemony", we must clarify how it affects our nature, and the top priority should be to reorganize the causes of "social media migration."
It is undeniable that behind this "migration wave", in addition to the venting of the anger of the "invaders," it is also an explosion of dissatisfaction with these large-scale technology platforms.
Associate Professor Chen Zhijie of the School of Communication of the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong explained in an interview with "Hong Kong 01" that although these platforms are operated by private companies in a commercial form, their existence and services have become people's necessities, so the public's expectations for them are also based on ordinary commodities. Upgrade to "public goods", and then put on a "moral halo" for them, hoping that they will take greater social responsibility.
On the contrary, the business of these platforms has long deteriorated. They have always used market advantages to prey on users’ "biological data", analyze consumer behaviors, conduct transactions for profit, and thereby launch more "tailor-made" services and consolidate monopoly. status.
Chen Zhijie said that social media has become a necessity.
The public's expectations of them have been raised from ordinary commodities to "public products", hoping that they will take greater social responsibility.
(Photo by Gao Zhongming)
However, when the public has "high-end expectations" on social platforms, it is often difficult to find a set of objective standards that everyone agrees with in the public discussion space.
For example, Twitter and Facebook initially restricted Trump's posts because Trump often made unfounded or inflammatory remarks during the campaign, and those platforms were therefore questioned by opponents for failing to fulfill social responsibilities; however, , When they cited the 1919 Chief Justice Holmes’s principle of “obvious and immediate danger” on whether inflammatory speech falls within the scope of protection of freedom of speech, and restricting Trump’s account to speak, so as to prevent extreme right organizations from being “called” again. After sabotaging the inauguration ceremony of President-elect Biden, another camp criticized the relevant behavior for making the giant tech company a censorship machine, "killing American democracy," and "suppressing freedom of speech," which put the platform into a dilemma.
Ironically, this populist situation with clear barriers is precisely fueled by social media.
Today with the liberation of information, coupled with pushes operated by algorithms, it is easier for the public to find their own group through social media-in the group, users continue to deepen their beliefs through the "mutual affirmation" of their likes and form invincibility The "Echo Gallery" of the People's Republic of China; outside the group, the people speak their own words and go to extremes.
"Hong Kong 01" once explained in detail in the article "Four major sequelae of the "strato" chaos and "conformity"" how the phenomenon builds an ideological wall, for example, in line with the psychological characteristics of human beings as a group of animals that are inherently biased and partial. Catering to the expression culture that pursues "speed first" and "emotion-driven", fosters the oppositional atmosphere of "I am right and wrong" and "I am right and evil", and cut off the formation of "common sense", making it difficult to reach consensus in public discussions.
Chen Zhijie believes that social media is flourishing, but it is easy to stray.
(Data Picture/Photo by Lao Xianliang)
Chen Zhijie believes that in terms of political discussions, the political orientation of social media can be described as a hundred flowers blooming, but it is also easier to go biased, and it leads to "decentralization" and "decentralization".
It can be said that there is a mutually beneficial relationship between populism and social media: on the one hand, populist politicians are more likely to find supporters in the blooming social media and expand their influence; on the other hand, social media can also rely on These politicians' "wonderful" remarks attracted huge traffic.
However, when society is increasingly polarized by the influence of social media, the situation of social media is becoming more and more awkward-whether it performs or fails to perform any social responsibilities, adopts or does not take any restrictive measures, it will offend any party at both ends of the spectrum, and the original The tech giants, which tend to support the U.S. Democratic Party and are on the left side of the spectrum, are attacked by Trump and his right-wing supporters from time to time, and even claim to be "victims" and then launch "immigrant waves." , A big counterattack.
The problem is that today's Facebook and Twitter are no longer what they were just launched more than a decade ago, and who can ensure that the now rising MeWe will not become another giant technology enterprise in the future?
Some people may argue that MeWe, founded in 2012, has already promised "three nos"-it will not sell advertisements, will not obtain specific user data, and will not conduct censorship based on political prejudices. It is believed that it can change social media to create through algorithms. The ecology of "speech stratosphere" makes users not only see what they are inclined to watch; however, everyone with a discerning eye knows that the current "migration wave" under the banner of "opposing the hegemony of Internet giants" is actually only in individual politics. It is prevalent among camps—in other words, most of the "immigrants" come from the same political spectrum. Even if there is no selective push of algorithms, they have chosen the established content, making the stratosphere thicker.
What do I need to think about before and after "emigration"?
The "migration tide" has made the opposition between people's positions more and more serious, and has even evolved from an information opposition to a platform dispute, which may accelerate the loss of space for discussion in society.
However, Chen Zhijie is not completely pessimistic. On the contrary, he believes that there are always users who are willing to use different platforms at the same time, instead of confining themselves to the "furnace";
but he also
pointed
out three important points:
Compared to "immigrant" from social platforms such as Facebook to another new social platform, it is more important to think about how to limit these "Internet monsters" that monopolize resources.
(Data Picture/Photo by Gao Zhongming)
First
, even if you switch to a new platform, it is difficult to guarantee that the platform will not change its principles and become a large commercial organization in the future.
When these platforms have developed to have a huge number of users and are profitable, people will naturally plan to acquire them.
For example, another introduction to the social platform "Immigration Wave"-the instant messaging program WhatsApp, has also vowed to protect user privacy, but after being acquired by Facebook at a sky-high price in 2014, it recently asked users to agree to share data between the two.
Second
, if commercial media platforms are required to regulate and publish content on their own, in order to avoid involvement in political disputes, they generally adopt automatic programs instead of manual censorship; however, the relevant model can only screen false information at best, which is really difficult to filter that may endanger the public Safe speech.
Therefore, even if it is a brand-new social platform, it may inevitably fall into the dispute between "suppression of speech" and "protection of speech."
Third
, we need to think about the role of the state and government in social media or the Internet world.
After all, these technology giants are all listed companies and are regulated by the regulatory authorities.
Just like Europe, anti-monopoly issues have been discussed, and there are large restrictions on technology giants. For example, technology companies are required to be responsible for the content posted by users on their platforms. If the Internet is to be regarded as a public service product , The state and government must intervene in regulation to maintain "net neutrality."
To be the master of technology, or to focus on technology?
Although "network regulation" is often regarded as "a scourge," this is indeed a problem that has to be addressed.
For example, although Trump’s ban has caused controversy among all parties, objectively speaking, both within the United States and around the world, there are still many voices who believe that although the relevant measures "infringe the freedom of speech," they ultimately protect society. Order demonstrates the power of justice and occupies the moral high ground; however, it also highlights the infinite crisis that social media is sitting on. It turns out that the order, justice and morality of a country can be said by these "Internet giants" that monopolize the market. Count.
Twitter blocked Trump and permanently blocked the account of US President Trump (@realDonaldTrump).
Political circles in many countries criticized the ban as "problematic."
(Twitter@TwitterSafety)
The out-of-control of social media power has obviously become a problem for governments of all countries.
German Chancellor Merkel criticized the ban as "problematic." German government spokesman Steffen Seibert also stated that freedom of speech is a basic right. When restrictions are imposed on it, it must be based on the law and the framework. It is not up to the management of social media to decide.
French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire also pointed out that the country should be responsible for regulating the Internet, not a "digital oligarch". He even described these technology giants as "one of the threats to democracy."
In fact, Germany promulgated the "Internet Enforcement Act" as early as 2017, Australia also passed the "Restriction of the Dissemination of Hateful Violent Content Act" in 2019, and the British government officially issued the title "The UK Leads Social Media" in the middle of last month. The "New Era of Accountability System" document stated that it will introduce new rules for network technology companies, severely punish companies that fail to protect users, and retain high-level responsibility, platforms have the responsibility to deal with legal and illegal injuries, and platforms have the obligation to protect children's safe use Network etc.
"The social media chaos in the past week has actually sounded the alarm bell, prompting users to further reflect: How much personal information are they willing to sacrifice for service and convenience? How much freedom of speech and thought are they willing to sacrifice? When these two transnational social media When it holds a monopoly position, how should the international community allow better and healthier competition in the market so that consumers have a real choice?" Wang Huilin, a current affairs commentator, wrote "Thinking about the Transfer Tide" in a newspaper recently. This urges users everywhere to self-reflection.
Indeed, in the dynamics of public opinion created by social media, everyone has long forgotten whether we are the masters of technology or technology is our master—gradually losing the initiative to receive information, let these platforms dominate our thinking mode and become a single Solid thinking of dimensions.
Whether it is "immigrants" or "stay-behind", the key to truly "overturning cyber hegemony" lies in whether we can regain control of the right to receive information, actively embrace the expression of diverse views, and jointly build a world of "harmony without difference".
The above was published in the 249th issue of "Hong Kong 01" Weekly (January 18, 2021) "It is better to regain information autonomy when migrating social media platforms". If you want to read the full text, please
click here to
sample the weekly newsletter and browse more in-depth reports.
Selected content of 249 issue of "Hong Kong 01" Weekly News:
[Cover report] The whole network blocks Trump's left-wing capital to counterattack the right-wing populist
Blessing or curse?
Can Western Democracy Pass the Trial of Technology
Migrating social media platforms is not as good as regaining information autonomy
How can public funds be used? How can citizens decide how civil society does not have a participatory budget?
Dialogue: China, torn apart by the extreme left, needs to be tolerant
Before the epidemic, the tourism industry is in danger
Both the number of infections and deaths are "the highest in Europe." Why is the outbreak in the UK getting worse?
The development has been squandered for many years and is now finally kicking off. Who will live in housing along the Northern Ring Road?
[Technology.
Future] Meeting the five key needs of solid-state batteries or helping electric vehicles become mainstream
In-depth report on the oligopolistic monopoly of social networks, the United States, 01 Weekly FacebookSignalMeWeTwitter Trump