Twitter’s recent banning of accounts critical of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is deplorable. But it also forces us to really start considering how Western social media and Big Tech companies can defend freedom of speech, instead of being used as tools against us by authoritarian states such as the Chinese regime.
The issue of tech-based freedom of speech platforms, and the damage they can do to free societies if left entirely unregulated, isn’t exactly a new one. In recent years, however, it has become even more troublesome, as authoritarian states have taken to using Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and even LinkedIn to wage disinformation campaigns, affect elections, split, divide society, and cause havoc in general.
When called upon to take proper action against authoritarian states that undermine free societies, the tech companies have had a rather consistent defense—namely that their platforms will ultimately bring greater freedom of speech, therefore, they shouldn’t be forced to take action. While it seems like an honorable argument, it’s a hollow and ignorant one, especially at this point in time.
The prospect of making more money is what prevents Big Tech companies from taking any real action against such states. Mark Zuckerberg has tried to woo the Chinese regime by asking CCP leader Xi Jinping to name his unborn child back in 2015 and by jogging in a heavily polluted Beijing—these are images that no public relations campaign will ever be able to counter. It showed Zuckerberg’s real allegiance to the CCP, and it certainly wasn’t in support of freedom of speech.
These arguments, thoroughly debunked, are no different than when monarchists argue for keeping a monarchy because it brings undefined economic benefits, which has never actually been proven, or when business lobby groups argue against actions that counter Beijing’s economic and trade violations because they believe that free trade will somehow lead to democracy, freedom of speech, and rule of law in China. We know that the latter belief is hollow and false, but it keeps on repeating until some part of us just accepts it.
Dealing with fake news and disinformation within our societies will certainly be a long and difficult march. But when it comes to dealing with China, Russia, and other authoritarian or neo-totalitarian states that use our own tools of freedom of speech against us, the solution is actually really simple.
Take Twitter, for example. If a state blocks its people’s access to Twitter, then block the state’s access to the social media platform, including government officials. This should apply to the Chinese regime, as it has officially blocked Twitter in mainland China. However, some citizens have been able to circumvent the “great firewall,” and major Chinese companies can access Twitter through a government-approved VPN.
Such a policy wouldn’t even have to touch upon the thorny issue of what can or can’t be said on such platforms. Instead, it would zero in on one simple question: Does the state using the platform allow its own people the same access? If not, then it’s out: access for access.
Not only would this policy add real pressure on authoritarian states to open up access to such tools for their peoples, but it would severely limit their abilities to use others to sow disinformation in the United States, affect outcomes in elections in the UK, or try to split and divide the EU.
Safeguard Defenders has campaigned against China’s state broadcasters CGTN and CCTV, and has seen them taken off the air in several countries. For China, it’s a loss of prestige. But in reality, Beijing’s disinformation work is almost entirely carried out on social media, with few viewers of its stale news shows on TV. In fact, after CGTN’s license was revoked in the UK, an informant told Safeguard Defenders that the media company replaced its “social media first” policy with a “social media only” policy. It knows what really matters.
An “access for access” policy would be straightforward, fair, predictable, open, and, as a bonus, rather easily applicable. No dictatorship could cry wolf, because, with such an open and fair policy, the outcome would be entirely on them.
Give those who block freedom for its people a simple choice, and leave that choice to them.
My greatest surprise is that as an option and as a way forward, it isn’t even discussed. It seems, somehow, to be out of bounds, outside of people’s imaginations. Considering the resources needed in combatting bots, in seeking pedophiles, and in seeking those committing cyber crimes online, implementing such a policy would be easy in comparison.
Improving the management of disinformation online is going to be a long and epic struggle, and no one has all the answers at this time. However, there are areas that are black and white, and while we ponder the larger issues of disinformation, it’s a good place to start.
It’s time for our social media giants to take some actual steps to defend and promote freedom of speech, instead of merely giving us empty gestures.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.