When will the online Thought Police come for you? Covid has escalated Silicon Valley's restrictions on speech

Occasionally, we might lodge an appeal, asking for more details on how precisely we broke the rules, only to receive an automated response referring us back to the very set of rules we were questioning in the first place. It’s rather reminiscent of Josef K. in Kafka’s The Trial, punished for an unspecified crime that he is not aware he has committed.

But for all of Titania’s alleged sins, I can’t help but feel that TalkRADIO is a rather different beast. It’s an Ofcom-regulated and licensed broadcaster which has accumulated tens of millions of views. Perhaps that’s why YouTube back-pedalled late last night and reinstated the channel.

Its U-turn hardly matters. The point has been made: if Big Tech doesn’t like what you say, it won’t let you say it. Especially when it comes to the pandemic. And yesterday’s TalkRADIO “cancellation” is just the latest example of how Covid has escalated Silicon Valley’s restrictions on speech. Even a Lockdown TV episode featuring Professor Karol Sikora was recently removed from YouTube, probably as a result of his claim that the virus was likely to “burn out” and that levels of public immunity had been underestimated.

You could be forgiven for thinking that a distinguished oncologist and former advisor to the World Health Organisation such as Professor Sikora has something to add to the current debate, irrespective of whether or not one agrees with his analysis. Fortunately, the video was re-uploaded after YouTube claimed that the deletion had been an error.

Even so, if there is one lesson to be drawn from last year, surely it is that Big Tech censorship is expanding into every aspect of our lives. This has manifested itself in a number of ways, but most notably during the US election when the New York Post’s Twitter account was suspended for publishing an unflattering article about Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and users were prevented from sharing the story.

It’s hardly surprising that, as Douglas Murray notes in his book The Madness of Crowds, the people employed to monitor content on Twitter’s “Trust and Safety Council” — a designation so dystopian in tone that it almost feels deliberate — are first tested in order “to weed out anyone with the wrong ideological inclinations”.

Inevitably, free speech sceptics have been making the same tired old arguments in response to the temporary TalkRADIO ban, most predictably the mantra that, thanks to the free market, “a private company can do whatever it likes”, including banning its users. Certainly this is true. But leaving aside the bizarre phenomenon of self-identified leftists calling for greater powers for faceless corporations, should this principle really be embraced? Should, for example, Facebook have the right to discriminate against gay people, or certain ethnic groups? Political orientation may not be an immutable characteristic, yet few of us would justify the suppression of political dissidents by the despots of history on these grounds.

In recent years, there has been a growing misapprehension that censorship can only be enacted by the state. But in reality, social media platforms are the de facto public square, and the companies that run them are effectively the arbiters of a substantial proportion of political discourse. This has generated uncertainty among libertarians whose fealty to the free market sits at odds with the fact that those of their persuasion are far more likely to be censored under these conditions. Meanwhile, the predominance of the identity-obsessed social justice movement in Silicon Valley has led to a self-contradictory phenomenon: an avaricious corporate oligopoly comprising those who nonetheless believe themselves to be ‘left-wing’.

And so these companies find themselves in a position to claim that they are platforms committed to the principle of free speech, while at the same time able to behave like publishers who seek to enforce limitations on the opinions that may be expressed. This has its perks, particularly as it means that whenever the likes of Twitter are sued for libellous material posted by their users, they invariably cite Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which ensures that they are not legally responsible for content that they fail to remove.

The law was crafted out of an understanding that, given the proliferation of comment sections on news websites, it was always unfeasible to expect media outlets to be able to ensure that illegal content would not be uploaded. Yet now, this same law is being routinely exploited to enable tech giants to censor with impunity.

There are a number of potential solutions, few of which have been seriously explored. One would have thought that a discussion about a potential Internet Bill of Rights would be sensible, given that the Communications Decency Act is so obviously being abused for partisan purposes. Alternatively, the wording of the Act could be changed so that companies are not liable for specifically illegal material that appears, meaning that banning accounts for ideological reasons, or censoring posts simply because Silicon Valley staff find them offensive, would not be protected by law.

Failing that, we will have to resign ourselves to the solution that Titania McGrath suggested in her first book: “If you don’t want to be censored, don’t say the wrong things”.

---

Andrew Doyle is a comedian and creator of the Twitter persona Titania McGrath

andrewdoyle_com