Silicon Valley Strikes Again

in #technology6 years ago

The past week has seen the giants of Silicon Valley crack down on conservative voices on their platforms. Candace Owens was locked out of Twitter on Sunday after she copied and edited old tweets from New York Times editorial board member Sarah Jeong. The following day, Infowars was banned from most social media platforms. On Thursday, Microsoft threatened to boot social media site Gab off its Azure cloud hosting site after a user published two posts flagged as hate speech.

These incidents demonstrate that these corporations consider themselves the gatekeepers of free speech, and will use everything in their power to silence undesirables -- in other words, every right-winger who uses their platforms. While individual corporations have previously denied services to right-wing organisations, the Infowars incident suggests that Big Social is now actively collaborating to deplatform right-wingers.

Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify banned Infowars within 12 hours of each other. Pinterest, Disqus, Spreaker, Flickr, Stitcher, Audioboom, Tunein, LinkedIn and MailChimp have also denied services to Infowars. The sheer number of corporations involved in such a short time is suggestive of behind-the-scenes collusion to deplatform one of the most popular right-wing websites in America. At the very least, the Silicon Valley giants are taking cues from each other to identify and deplatform prominent right-wingers.

What happened to Infowars is an escalation and a portent of things to come. Over the past few years, Silicon Valley has steadily degraded the ability of non-leftists on their media platforms to communicate with their audiences. From the deplatforming of Stormfront to the demonetisation of many YouTube videos, the censorship of pro-Trump YouTube personalities Diamond and Silk to the recent shenanigans, Big Social and its allies among Internet service providers will continue to ratchet up the pressure on everyone to the right of Mao Ze Dong in an attempt to remove them permanently from the Internet.

With social media an intrinsic part of life in the First World, Big Media and Big Tech have the power to decide who gets to communicate with a worldwide audience -- and who will be condemned to the dark corners of the Web. While Infowars is infamous for its conspiracy theories, if Big Media can deplatform Infowars and other high-profile groups and personalities without censure or legal consequences, then they have the power to silence anyone. Today they may go after someone you hate, but if left unchecked, tomorrow it will be you.

There's only one solution to this: fork and replace.

The need for alternative media platforms has never been greater. Every Silicon Valley tech company must be considered in league with the censors unless proven otherwise. All platforms and digital infrastructure created, owned and operated by Big Media and their allies in Big Tech are vulnerable to corporate censorship; everyone who uses their platforms and does not subscribe to the narrative du jour must be aware that it's only a matter of time before Big Tech comes for them.

Currently, Idka and BitChute offer similar functionality to Facebook and YouTube respectively without the threat of censorship. Gab aims to be the Twitter killer. Unlike Google, DuckDuckGo does not track user search data and will not personalise search results (and advertisements). While these platforms are serviceable, they still need more support before they can truly topple the titans of Silicon Valley.

I'm more concerned about Big Tech attempting to censor popular right-wing websites like Breitbart, Dangerous, or Vox Day's blog. Websites hosted on servers allied or beholden to Big Social or Big Tech will, like Stormfront and Gab, find themselves on the wrong end of a takedown notice.

I'm intrigued by the possibilities blockchains offer as an alternative to traditional hosting platforms. Gab is planning to create a blockchain to ensure self-sufficiency and to preserve their users' freedom of speech. Steemit shows how individual bloggers can post freely on censorship-proof platforms.

However, Steemit in its current form isn't adequate as a true website or blog replacement. The user interface and user experience poses challenges to inexperienced users and users accustomed to the sleek tools and customisation options traditional blogging and website platforms offer. There is still no archive function, no way to easily format text, and no way for uses to personalise their presentation through themes, sidebars or other widgets common on other platforms.

For decentralised blockchain social media platforms to take off in an age of corporate censorship, they must offer functionality and user-friendliness similar to existing platforms in addition to being self-sufficient and censorship-proof. Without a superior UX, adoption will be limited to tech geeks and those willing to invest the time and energy to learn the foibles and quirks of the platform.

I'm not sure Steemit will be able to revamp itself to meet these requirements. But perhaps a future platform can, one that builds upon the Steemit experience and offers a true blog-like user experience on a censorship-proof platform powered by cryptocurrency.

Today, Big Media holds great power over the Internet, and is unafraid of exercising its power to shut down users with different points of view. But with crisis comes opportunity, and to those who wish to be free, the time is now to fork and replace, and leave behind the corporate censors forever.

--

Cheah Git San Calligraphy.jpg

Fortunately, Amazon is still free from blatant corporate censorship. Check out my latest novel HAMMER OF THE WITCHES here.

To stay updated on my future stories, sign up for my newsletter here.

Sort:  

The issue is that most programmers are busy working freelance or full time on jobs for institutional players. (Who're totalitarian oriented. Or in any case, the typical consumer, who's more or less broke, is not their actual customer ... Which does not bode well for the preferences of the typical consumer ...)

Why do developers favor working for institutional actors ... rather than doing their own thing? Poverty? That or because existing organization pay the most. Or because most developers are themselves totalitarian oriented. (They didn't think much about it, always did as they were told and things were fine, not good, but fine, and go along with the myth of central control as capable of solving any and all problems, apparently magically. Meanwhile developers write decentralized message passing to actually solve problems. They don't think much about it.)

Abolutely fewer specialists are freedom oriented. Individuals who are freedom oriented, for some reason, rarely go into science or high level specialization in technology. But this becomes troublesome. (When all technological centers are controlled by totalitarians.) David Landes made it clear ... Like gravity is the most significant force over long large space and time, being always positive, in the long run technology is real power ... Jerry Pournelle said it: Prefer to bother a tiger in its cave than a scholar among his books. Meanwhile those who have no power lose.

And then, the fewer developers who are not really in favor of centralized, totalitarian solutions don't organize. Making software that looks nice with tiny teams is very high risk. Result is failure. But they don't organize. So they lose.

There are dozens of groups of developers, hundreds, who do not assemble into teams of more than two or three. Almost nothing gets done. Whatever does get done is slow and cannot be rapidly maintained. And they expect to compete with A team (15 - 25), B team (15 - 25), C team (15 - 25) corporate structure in getting a mainstream product out the door ...

I'll be writing about this in much greater detail, but two relevant points here...

First, blockchain really isn't the answer for anything but blogging or recording transactions. You can't do media on blockchain, and of course we need reliable ways of storing data that isn't handed out to thousands of blockchain nodes. So we need reliable servers, and if we have reliable servers (and all that requires), blockchain is a useful tool, but not really critical.

Second, Amazon is, I think, not too far from jumping fully on the censorship bandwagon. They booted codeisfreespeech.com from AWS just the other day. I'm glad they're not going too crazy yet, but I think it would be a horrible mistake to assume they'll continue to treat authors fairly as time goes on, especially as they become even more dominant.

Now is the time to be building our own sites and stores, and working on making it as easy as possible for customers to go from buying an ebook online to reading it on a device. Maybe it'll be a few years before Amazon turns tyrannical, but I definitely am not going to wait until they turn their guns on me to do something about the inevitability.

I don't want to trust Amazon either. The idea of a single company determining the online shopping and publishing experience doesn't sit right with me. While it's still the big player in town, I will be exploring alternative publication/distribution options. My current go-to is Smashwords and its distribution partners, but I suspect (and hope) there'll be other and better options in the future.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.30
TRX 0.12
JST 0.033
BTC 64400.33
ETH 3140.71
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.93