When censorship replaces commonality

If we were to take a more open, interested approach when viewing others' concerns, maybe we could wean ourselves away from extremism- away from mental totalitarianism- and rediscover our commonality.

What are the factors that contribute to the lack of understanding or, worse still, to the animosity exhibited between various groups of people? In the modern world, dominated by a web-driven culture in many places, media censorship plays a key role.

Widespread communication- whether it be digital (including social) media or more traditional print media- has practically, since its inception, been abused by those who have the means to control it.

If we are to assume there are culture wars raging today, and I would venture to say that there are, censorship is admittedly a cornerstone to the strategies being employed by either side.

Modernity has experienced this phenomenon in two major ways. In some cases, the perpetrators have been the governing body of a nation, tube-feeding its citizens a specialised diet of pro-administration propaganda. Elsewhere, a technocratic elite rises up, grasps a rhetorical razor blade, and cuts out content it deems harmful to its public.

A few more notable examples of the former situation are the extreme modes of censorship exercised in North Korea and China.

The overbearing Communist polity in China displays an expertise in the art of censorship. The administration makes demands on tech companies regarding the regulation of media. For years, the Communist government has deliberately censored web searches pertaining to the Tiananmen Square ordeal of 1989.

Near the beginning of the year, the BBC was banned from broadcasting in the country. Just last week, the Associated Press reported that Chinese smartphones imported to Lithuania include a feature set to censor over 400 key-words, “Free Tibet” and “Democratic Movement” being among them. While the feature is not yet active on the devices, Lithuania's National Cyber Security Center said there is nothing holding back the Chinese tech companies from activating it at any time.

The implications of Chinese government-mandated censorship are as impactful as they are far-reaching. As the announcement from Lithuania suggests, China's powerful censorship extends beyond its geographical borders.

Meanwhile, much of the culture of Western civilisation has found itself similarly censored- although by slightly different means. A large portion of this censorship comes via the immense sway that social media and various forms of digital entertainment hold over our lives. Recreational though these pastimes often are, their ramifications on our mental wellbeing can be severe. A new study from New York University states that Big Tech companies like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter have helped stoke the fires of American political polarisation. Again, there's nothing really holding these companies back from becoming a means to further polarising international communities as well.

According to recent statistics, the UK is the country that sports the third highest number of Twitter users outside the US- some 17.55 million people.

Collectively, Big Tech often shows its colors while waging manipulative warfare on various media that don't tend to conform to the overall tone it enjoys purveying. I cite instances of “alleged censorship” on social platforms of pro-life (or, if you prefer “anti-abortion”) media, which has been going on for a number of years, and the recent refusal on the part of Google to promote Live Action's advertisement for abortion reversal pills.

For a more well-known example of Big Tech's censorship, let's recall former President Trump's dethronement from his cyber soapboxes, particularly Twitter and Facebook. (You may compare this to Communist China's 'cancelling' of renowned Chinese actress Zhao Wei, whose social media content has been censored and whose presence has- for a time- vanished from the country's accessible Internet.)

Seemingly illiterate windbag though he might be, Trump's exile from the realm of social media nonetheless constitutes what many have decried as an infringement on basic liberties of expression. So much for our estimable freedom of speech.

This, and other forms of censorship, Big Tech justifies under such soothing-sounding intentions: the promotion of mental health, defense from misinformation, purging platforms of hate speech. Thus, at least in part, we have censorship to thank for the death of social intercourse.

The media fall silent, or else they offer a trimmed snippet of reality, catering to audience engagement rather than defending the truth. Preconceptions are pampered; divisions, exacerbated. There no longer appears to be any open, receptive dialogue.

While much of the Western world enjoys the peace of living apart from a Communistic regime, we might do well to ponder just how far away we are from such totalitarianism.

Writing in 1828, Joshua Taggart judges correctly that “in the political climate of social media, there is no room for” continually exposing oneself to new ideas and appraising their merit in relation to everything.

So, in a world that is so diverse, what's to be done to foster healthy discourse?

Diversity doesn't pose a dilemma; diversity isn't the same as division. Rather, the problem has to do with our lack of commonality- of common sensibility, objective news, and shared experiences.

If we were to take a more open, interested approach when viewing others' concerns, maybe we could wean ourselves away from extremism- away from mental totalitarianism- and rediscover our commonality.