Oscillating Tones

Freedom of speech is under attack, but maybe not forever.

Freedom of speech is struggling. The ability to openly discuss our thoughts has long been an important value in western democracy. Yet internet echo chambers and the dismissal of news as 'fake' by politicians mean that we as citizens are beginning to casually reject facts and principles that we disagree with.

One psychology experiment, for instance, found that we are willing to forgo money in order to avoid experiencing opposing opinions such as on gun control or gay marriage (more here). This is inflamed by silent algorithms, subtly influencing what we see on social media.

If you can't handle criticism of minorities,
short of inciting direct violence,
then grow a thicker skin

Because the internet, for the first time in the modern era, allows us to actively avoid neutral fact and contrary opinions, making us more hostile when opposition does surface. 
It also means everything we say can be picked apart for the smallest reasons, making us quickly feel morally engulfed or uncertain. 

These effects act as a brake on the freedom to ask questions and talk about the day's key issues. Better to stay quiet than get dragged into endless, unwinnable, comment wars.

The Importance of Being Earnest

This is alarming. There's a reason free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It allows criticism of politicians and government failures; a Nobel Laureate once pointed out that 'no democracy with a free press ever endured famine'. Free debate inspires innovation and creativity, with the killing of bad ideas and the encouraging of good ones. This explains why Silicon Valley has sprung up in America, 'land of the free'.

So is society doomed to collapse into petty squabbles for the foreseeable future?

Maybe not. A similar trend often occurs in high-stress periods. For example, during the Vietnam War, Max Hastings, a historian, has pointed out that opposition to the war quickly mutated into young people admiring 'Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara...heedless of the oppression their heroes promoted' (e.g. Mao's actions killed 20-45 million people). 

Apparently, if you're pro-war, you're a fascist

In this case, vague anti-war beliefs quickly evolved into support for North Vietnam, a nation which impoverished 8 million of its own people under 'rent controls'. 

Because everyone was/is so determined to get across their opinion, they shout more loudly and more radically to get attention. Anything in the middle ground is savaged by both sides, ergo, a loss of freedom of speech.

Yet in Vietnam, Saigon was overrun, the war ended and society returned to suburbia. The spite died down, and normal returned.

That holds promise for today. Freedom of speech is under threat. But it may not be permanent.

Theo

Why is politics today so different to years ago?

The political mixture of 2017 is unlike any before; what has brought this change on?

The world is always changing and reforming, as humanity tries new things and technology advances. 
But recently, this change has been focused on politics. 20 years ago, the idea of 'President' Trump would have been laughable; the Labour Party leader might not have survived this long, and the General Election results were far more predictable (10)
What has brought about this unreliability and development in the political world?

Google+, Facebook, Twitter, 
Instagram, Tumblr, and Whatsapp are the biggest social media sites in the Western World (3); almost 2.4 billion people are expected to use them in 2017 - mostly in democratic nations (except for China, which has its own social networking systems). 

This massive network of people allows ideas, opinions, facts, lies, and stories to be shared as quick as a mouse-click. Not even twenty years ago, politicians' main worry were the newspapers and TV News. They were slower and more manageable, which could be good, or bad.

Good:

• There was time for celebrities/authority figures/leaders to react to problems and leaks, because it would be hours, or even days, before news got out
• Information was generally more trustworthy, as the sources were easier to monitor and there was more time to verify facts

Bad:

• The news sources were controlled by a few select people (5) who could turn (almost) the entire industry against the Government, or the Opposition, or whoever they didn't like
• Governing bodies were more distant and harder to reach; Twitter now allows us to abuse them in a short sentence

But the rapid onset of the internet caught everyone - especially the politicians - by surprise, and over 2007 (seen as the dawn of social media) a new system of sharing information developed. For several years Governments and political groups fell behind as social media permanently transformed how news is reported, and how we view it. These websites means that organisations such as the BBC can display breaking news instantly (11), being shared and re-shared by hundreds of people a minute, perhaps millions over a day. 

This can be great news! Bad Government policies that might have gone unnoticed - such as the Tax Credits cuts in 2015 - can be withdrawn after intense social media pressure (6). 

George Osborne (who introduced the cuts) in 2015

This makes politicians far more vulnerable. This could lead to a greater need by governments to appeal to the people, possibly changing how they do things for the better. It will also encourage more of us - especially youth - to take an interest in politics, which might gradually form a more diverse government, fresher and better connected, with real passion and ideas.

It can be bad news though. We spend a huge amount of time on social media (7), which means that we're still easily influenced by it; 'it's' just online instead. There's a strong chance that Russia meddled in the US elections by having certain people on social media spread false stories about Clinton (8). The stories then spread extremely quickly, and probably changed enough minds to impact the vote. 

As Winston Churchill said: 'A lie can go halfway round the world while the truth is putting its shoes on'. Social media is the worst of this phrase, with exciting legend taking first place to boring truth. 

Trump's controversial comments during campaigning - whilst often immoral - got constant coverage online, and meant that people kept seeing him far more than Clinton, even in memes (above). This free awareness almost certainly encouraged enough people to cast their ballot for him, having the (potentially worrying) effect of making him President.

The connectivity of social media means that we have far more freedom and power, but we're also more visible. We can challenge governments, but then be targeted by them. Facebook has come under a lot of flak recently; they can monitor your political beliefs, and then sell this information to whomever wants it (9). The resulting adverts and posts specifically geared towards us could convince people to support ideas that they may never have held, and thus change the way we vote, and who you are.


Social media has given us the power to change politics beyond reckoning, but we must be careful - politics is beginning to fight back.

Thank you for reading! I wasn't able to cover things like Corbyn, the EU referendum, and the General Elections, but I'm more than happy to talk about them or answer questions in the comments. Do you disagree with what I've said? Let me know and we can discuss! 

Theo