Big Tech Censorship amid a Global Pandemic

May 24, 2020 News

---

By Glenville Ashby, PhD

“If all Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They will have enough to eat and a bed over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.” – Dwight Eisenhower
As a global pandemic stirs debate over civil liberties, I cannot help but envision history’s most fabled philosophers drawing their own conclusions.

Amid the economic paralysis caused by coronavirus (Covid-19), many have begun to question the once hallowed health guidelines of policy makers. The monolithic approach to flattening the curve touted as gospel is being challenged by a growing segment of the population. That social media platforms, such as YouTube and Twitter have sided with the official position adopted by the World Health Organization and the Centres for Disease Control by taking the contentious step to ban dissenting views is a disturbing development. Of this, what would the likes of Immanuel Kant and Jean Jacques Rousseau say? I ponder.
And I recall the pronouncement of French Enlightenment writer and philosopher Francois-Marie Arouet, known by the nom de plume Voltaire: “I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death for your right to say it.”
As warring, inconclusive opinions on the virus continue, some are clamouring for reason, not unbending government edicts.
It was Kant who defined reason as “synthesizing into unity, the concepts that are provided by the intellect.” Reason allows us to adapt to beliefs and practices based on new or existing information. What is noteworthy is that those defying government have made their own educated assessment on the mandated guidelines.
Protestors in Britain have challenged the statistical modeling designed by epidemiologist Neil Ferguson who has had the ear of government and has been notoriously wrong on every virus (See “So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?”) – Statistical Modelling, Causal Inference and Social Science, posted May 18, 2020 – https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu.
Not surprisingly, many are asking, “Why are dissenting videos, such as the one posted by licensed California physicians Dan Ericsson and Artin Massihi in the crosshairs of Facebook and YouTube?” And, “why were insightful views of Dr. Judy Mikovits suddenly clipped by these big tech companies?”
Many are drawing their conclusions based on their own research. The question continues: Why are liquor stores considered essential while hair salons (highly manageable by every standard) are forced to close? Why are the faithful not allowed to worship in religious houses? Can they not practice social distancing as they do in supermarkets? Why are there so many conflicting medical opinions on wearing face masks and the transmission of the virus? Why are open spaces, such as beaches and parks, off limits when epidemiologists have stated that being outdoors carries a lower risk for coronavirus transmission than being indoors. In an interview with the New York Times, Dr. Julia L. Marcus is quoted as saying, “On a sunny, beautiful weekend, I think going outside is important but I also think there are things to do to reduce our risk.”
Many have begun to cite Sweden’s policy that has kept large sectors of the economy open. Schools remain open and civil liberties have not been curtailed. Notably, the painful price predicted by virologists in neighbouring countries has not materialized. In fact, Dr. Michael Ryan, the WHO’s emergency expert praised the social experiment of the Scandinavian nation. Moreover, he noted that Sweden trusted its own communities to implement social distancing, a trust not accorded US citizens.
In Oregon, churches have legally challenged stay-at-home orders. In New Jersey, gym owner, Ian Smith, facing a phalanx of police officers in front of his business, vented, “We are sick and tired of [of having our rights] trampled on. We will not stand down.”
And there is Dallas resident Shelley Luther who was arrested for opening her hair salon. She told the court, “Feeding my kids is not selfish. If you think kids getting fed is, then please go ahead with your decision, but I am not going to shut the salon.”
And yet another salvo has been fired by 600 doctors in a letter asking the US president to end the national shutdown, stating that state mandates are causing a “mass casualty incident” with “exponentially growing health consequences.”
Daily, the chorus of resistance grows.
Paradoxically, censorship by big tech companies will only ignite the very conspiracies and ‘false information’ they profess to combat.
Expectedly, anticipating a social media crackdown, dissenting videos are going viral.
David Icke, a well-known conspiracy theorist, long a thorn in the side of orthodoxy, recently cited Winston Smith’s famous saying, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four,” meaning that objective truths should not be suppressed.
Should we not be allowed to reason and determine truth from falsehood?
“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said. And I cannot help but think of Rousseau’s, “Every person has a right to risk their own life for the preservation of it,” when the Dallas hairdresser addressed the court.
In his essay, ‘Theory and Practice,’ Emmanuel Kant said, “Freedom of the pen is the sole palladium of the people’s rights.” He argued that the curtailment of rights limits the ability of the commander (state official) to fulfil his or her obligation to the people.
So called conspiratorial videos that big tech companies have banned are very much alive in the minds of millions, a place that is off limits to the overreach of power. And this might well be the enduring lesson of this pandemic.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)
Feedback: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter@glenvilleashby

---

---