This Sunday, Amazon booted the right-wing social media platform Parler from its servers. It was not the first blow to the company but a dire one, coming after Google banned the app from the Google Play Store and Apple kicked it out from the App Store.
In the wake of January 6, it is unsurprising that Big Tech wanted to flex its muscles. Parler was designated the next platform for Trump-loyalists, and had already been used by schemers planning the attack on the Capitol. Once Amazon had identified a plethora of violent content on the platform they reportedly asked Parler to remove it, and when the company did not, the tech giant threw out its customer for violating the terms of service.
Shutting down hate speech online is less hitting a switch, more whacking a mole. Silence one platform and another pops up. As I write this, far-right activists are already flocking to a new forum: Gab. This platform has been around for a few years, runs its own servers on the decentralized Mastodon software, and brands itself a “Free Speech Social Network”. Others straight up call it social media for nazis.
On Twitter, Gab brags about adding 10k users per hour. Just hours ago the platform tweeted:
“Gab gained more users in the past 2 days than we did in our first two years of existing.”
Welcome to the information wars of 2021. In one corner: Big Tech. In the other: Trump supporters and far-right extremists. It would be a shame if either of these groups won out.
As a display of raw power the seemingly coördinated action of Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon is chilling. When these companies turn against you (even after enabling you for a long time), it stings. More than that, they have the power to maginalize you, to force you out of polite conversation into fringe ghettos, like Gab. No wonder the Trump crowd is crying censorship.
Parler users on Twitter aren’t upset about Parler’s laxitude toward abuse jeopardizing the platform. The consensus is that Big Tech is cracking down on free speech, silencing Parler because its users don’t share the political views of a liberal mainstream – or because the big tech companies hate the competition.
But let’s keep these two thoughts apart: (i) No, a private company dropping a customer because of violations of its terms of service is not outrageous. (ii) Yes, the concentration of power online is dangerous.
A highly centralized internet accumulates vast amounts of power at a few nodes. Amazon Web Services on its own controls a third of the cloud computing market. Add Google’s and Microsoft’s shares and you’re up to 60 percent of the market. Add up Twitter’s, Facebook’s and Google’s shares of online punditry and there’s not much left to competitors.
The best-case scenario in the short term is that the current power struggles force us to think deeply about the power of the dominant platforms, and the legislation governing them. We need true, diverse competition in this space but at the moment, thanks to the buy-or-squash strategy of the big guns, that’s impossible. At this point, only pro-privacy, pro-competitive, anti-monopolist legislation can remedy the situation.
That still leaves us with the nazi problem. I believe in the right to assemble and discuss politics without being monitored by omniscient, overreaching authorities. We will all have different views on the optimal balance between freedom and safety, but encryption bans and mass surveillance is not a price I’m willing to pay for some slight morsel of added security. That means we will never shut online nazis up. On a free internet there will be shadowy places where they gather and plot their feeble insurrections.
On the other hand, we don’t have to allow social media companies to make money from these conspiracy nuts and their violent rhetoric. We can legislate to hold platforms accountable for illegal content, and as users we can push for removal of harmful content.
For all the grievances about cancel culture, anyone who truly loves freedom of expression knows that call-outs and boycotts are in fact integral to it.
*
On another, not entirely unrelated note, here’s an allegory about civil courage and predictable outcomes:
There’s this man you admire. He’s powerful, rich, sucking up to him can get you places.
One day you see him driving drunk. You do nothing. Surely it was a one-time thing. Besides, you’ve seen how cruel he can be to people speaking up.
The next day he drives drunk again. You do nothing. Why should you? None of your peers do anything, it would be unfair to expect you to raise your voice.
He proceeds to drive drunk every day. For four years. You do nothing. It can’t be that bad, right? Things seem to be under control mostly, and when his car lurches alarmingly it helps to close your eyes.
Then one day in January he runs his car into a crowd. Kills five. Fuck fuck fuck. You denounce him, proclaiming with some indignance that he’s lost his mind. Drunk driving has always been despicable, entirely counter to your principles.
Congratulations, here’s no pat on your back.