Dictated Democracy
Are Algorithms Stealing Our Freedom
Of all the things the Super Bowl offers, the football, the famous ads, the half time show and even the over consumption of chicken wings, I don’t think anyone would expect it would bring conversations on democracy and safety. However, here we are. The story starts Sunday February 12th, 2023, Super Bowl Sunday, the 57thof its kind, where the Philadelphia Eagles faced off against the Kansas City Chiefs.
Celebrities, political figures, and lunatics with painted faces came out in their droves to support both teams, one of which was Elon Musk. Taking to Twitter, for a change, to show his support for The Eagles. Coincidentally Mr Musk sat next to Rupert Murdoch, something awfully Ghost of Christmas Future about this pairing. The tweet was swiftly deleted. The reasons for this are plentiful and speculative, ranging from political bias, embracement of supporting the losing team, and even it being far too off brand for himself. One reason does seem to seep through the cracks and feels as if it rings true, He didn’t get noticed.
President Joe Biden also tweeted concerning the Super Bowl, vastly outperforming Musk’s tweet, by almost three times the amount of impressions. This reportedly sent him into a form of frenzy. Calling together engineers, via his cousin James Musk who is also a twitter employee, to change the algorithm to ensure that he remains on top of the platform he owns. This pushed his tweets through the review process. This ensured they would reach anyone who hasn’t blocked him, forcing them to see all the drivel he subjects us to. All of this feels a touch un-sportsman like.
However, it raises a rather more pressing question. How is one man in charge of what we see? And is this power a responsible thing to wield by a man with such a fragile ego? And what exactly is an algorithm?
These little tricks are directly affecting our democracy, by social media and big tech companies pushing content and people towards us based on information found on our profiles. Every interaction we have refines the content we will be exposed to. Whether it is there to entertain us or develop what they like to call ‘discourse’. This essential means arguing, but a comment on post is an interaction after all. This removes our choice of content from the equation, directing our perception.
In 2018 Meta mogul, Mark Zuckerberg, refused to change the Facebook algorithm, even after recommendations that the current one was having negative effects on users’ mental health. The internal memos released about this situation even stated the algorithm went as far to promote content getting more negative reactions. This becomes even more of a daunting thought when we realise that it isn’t just Facebook owned by this man. Instagram is also a lamb to the slaughter, much like ourselves. Once again, a billionaire is allowed to push our perception into their own desires.
This isn’t a call for all personalisation on social media to be removed. If I had no option to scroll through an un-curated mess of humanity, I simply would cease to use such sites. But the clear impact the content could and has had on people seems to be significantly further down the list of importance when in the search of interaction.
Why do they want interactions so bad that these conglomerates are willing to throw their users under the bus for? Put simply, the more interactions means more people noticing these posts. The more eyes they can get on posts the more they can influence. Whether this be selling a product, service or even a more terrifying prospect, an opinion. All of this seems to echo Herman and Chomsky’s Manufactured Consent with a sprinkle of Orwellian observation.
Along with algorithms with-out any restriction, other than the musings of a Silicone Valley billionaire, content guidelines pose a similar threat. Content guidelines are fairly self-explanatory, they are a list of do, don’ts and don’t even think abouts. The big issue with these is that they seem to be blind to some and the eye of Sauron to others. These aren’t just the sour opinions of a man that was banned from Xbox Live for a questionable profile picture. In the same memos released concerning the Facebook algorithm, it was revealed that people such as celebrities and public figures (people who get high interactions) are effectively whitelisted. This allows them to float on past the guidelines and effectively post whatever they want. Makes you think why it was so important for them to acquire verified accounts.
This allows these people of influence to be essentially free to push whatever product, or view they like. And even if people disagree with their opinion or product. as long as the interactions roll in, it will continue to be promoted. This seems relatively benign when thinking about TikTokers promoting their drop shipped air purifiers, but when applied to certain public figures these platforms become a significantly more hostile place entirely.
People such as Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, and the ever-present Andrew Tate are just a few of the people that have benefited from controversy prevailing. These men carry bizarre, out-dated, and antiquated views which have begun to worm their way into the younger generation of men’s minds. Why? Because they are being bombarded by the algorithm, and interactions are finding the people that are susceptible to these views creating a cult like circle of increasingly more radical ‘Yes Men’. I think they go by the term, Alphas.
Now, to put blame solely on the social media outlets greed does seem to be, for want of a better term, letting these men of the hook. Allowing them to sit in the corner with their views, festering in their own little community, with-out retribution. This is not the case, these men are equally to blame with their manipulations of these platforms, feeding them with interactions, generating income. The larger the discourse, the larger the audience to sell to. This is nothing new when it comes to rounding up people. Cult leaders have done this form of work since time began, drip-feeding and eventually radicalising, all in plain sight.
In the past few years social media has pushed this misogynistic entity on the young men of the world via this drip-feeding mechanism. The first that came to my corner of the internet was Jordan B. Peterson. Once a renowned psychologist has now become a cult leader to some and to others, he is a shouty man on podcast, with a mickey mouse voice, who will somehow end up inexplicably crying. However, he is the entry level. His views and some of his work isn’t quite as polemic as others in this bizarre field. The problem truly lays with who he is associated with, the algorithm knows. With reviews of his book, ’12 Rules To Live’, being mainly positive in the way of it being a self help book. Some more scathing reviews seem to focus on him as a person rather than the content of the book. This legitimises Peterson, creating a less controversial first drip
Photo by Avery Evans on Unsplash
Photo by Avery Evans on Unsplash
This quickly becomes a case of paddling in the sea and before you know it the tide has come in and a current is pulling you under. Peterson, though his views weren’t what most consider politically correct, he is one of the less offensive of the group. This is effectively saying he is the least bity tiger in the enclosure. This has changed in more recent years, with him involving himself with more like-minded people, creating a circle jerk of misogyny. Now this is a bit of a chicken or the egg situation of did he start associating with them because of his views or did his views worsen because of his association with them? It isn’t too important the curious thing is what drew them together, one shared interest that they all put online.
Our young men are beginning a similar, slow, and steady decent into the extreme. This is stoked like a fire by the algorithms and the god like posting powers that these people of influence have. Creating places that wrap people up and morph them into the dreaded followers of people such as Peterson, it also encourages others to join. This doesn’t happen purely out of nothing, there has to be a common thread. in a progressive world that is constantly changing, people can often need a moment to regroup and figure out their opinion on things. This is a point of vulnerability, where they can be easily lead. Young people in general fall neatly into this category. All of this form their own communities and fuel the fire burning in each other even more getting more and more extreme. This is called an echo chamber.
All sounds a little familiar, doesn’t it? A Hark back to covid days where everyone seemed to be in their own conspiracy bubble. Now we can see that the rise in this one, Q-anon, Flat Earthers, and people that hate coriander have all taken a back seat. the rise of top G (Andrew Tate) and his minions of misogyny, is now en vogue.
Maybe it become a bit more familiar when associated with something more akin to the Manson Family or Heavens Gate. The War Room is an inner circle of men lead by Andrew Tate. Involved at a high level is Iggy Semmelweis, a hypnotist who has extreme views with regards to women. I feel like that doesn’t need much explanation of why that is a problem.
Followers are expected to go through an initiation of facing off with a trained cage fighter. They ritualistically take a beating and are celebrated after with a secretive party, while those who chose not to be beaten get publicly shamed to the rest of the group.
This pocket of misguided passion creates a very unsafe places of developing men that are at vulnerable parts in their life. Men like Tate and his followers, reinforced by algorithms, are rounding up people pushing them further down the rabbit hole. The algorithm then surrounds them by others to lull them into false sense of security and acceptance of these views. Slowly the work of generations of feminism, incredible bravery of the ME-TOO movement, and countless other feats of gender equality see to be undone. This creates a very unsafe world.
The safety issue is rearing its ugly heads in places that are becoming more and more worrying. Companies such as Prevent that go into schools to provide safeguarding training for ages 4-18 are now having to include training and advice for the radicalisation of young boys by these men. Yes, radicalisation. The same word used for what happens to terrorist, which for how these weird cults are going, seems apt, when you look at some of the things Tate has said across his platforms such as Hustler University, Tate Speech and Emergency room, a podcast he shares with his brother, Tristan.
Music by chillmore from Pixabay
Music by chillmore from Pixabay
The people that are becoming radicalized by this kind of content are often referred to as incels, or involuntary celibates. This name probably doesn’t help matters but here we are. The Oxford Dictionary defines an incel as,
A member of an online community of young men who consider themselves unable to attract women sexually, typically associated with views that are hostile towards women and men who are sexually active.
There are more and more reports of these people committing acts of violence, often with horrendous consequences.
One of these occasions was an attack in Keyham, Plymouth on 12th August 2021. The horrific attack was carried out by Jake Davidson (22). 5 people were killed and 2 others severely injured in what people described as a rampage, eventually turned the gun on himself. The victims included a 3-year-old girl. Due to his death no official motive, however he was said to be entrenched in incel culture, and shared hate filled content across social media.
This isn’t a Mass in America, it’s not an organised and calculated bomb placing by ISIS, it’s an act of hatred in a miscellaneous part of the UK. This is significant change in what Terrorism has become. It’s no longer something that can be avoided with a change in outdated gun laws or a bolster in security. This man was exposed to media readily available online. Davidson’s obsession with weapons and Incel culture started very young. His mother reported to a careers advisor that he was involved in different online spaces surrounding such subjects when he was 18. This fascination had been noticed before by GP’s, Mount Tamar School (a school for people of the autistic spectrum) and mental health workers.
He also had a violent past, with incidents involving students and teachers at Mount Tamar School. He also got into a fight in a park, reportedly knocking out a 16-year-old boy and slapping a 15-year-old girl for calling him fat. After this he returned home and begun to load his shotgun, his mother managed to calm him down. In a video posted regarding this even Davidson said,
This is why incels were more prone to killing themselves – or going on a killing spree.
After this his certificate to own his pump action shotgun was suspended, at the time of the attack it had been reinstated and he carried out the attacks with a shotgun he legally owned.
There are many layers where systems had failed to prevent this attack that took the lives of 2 men, 2 women and a 3-year-old child. However, one key failure was the online platforms that allowed him to become radicalised by views that believe things like this to be acceptable. These platforms actively encourage the creation of these groups in the persuit to develop more interactions.
At the time of writing Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan have been released from prison in Romania following charges of human trafficking. This is one of many interactions the Tate’s have had with law enforcement. The previous alleged offences follow the trend of violence against women. They are of rape and assault. The current charges he is facing concern his pornographic webcam business he previously owned. The cumulation of laws broken (despite no convictions) are the final stroke in a horrific painting of a man, who’s content can’t seem to be stopped.
This brings us back to the beginning, Elon Musk and Twitter. When the acquisition of Twitter took place on 27thOctober 2022. It took less than a month later Andrew Tate to have his account reinstated on 18th November. He is still currently able to tweet his hateful content to the world a. He managed to gain 1 million followers in the first 24 hours back on twitter, after a near 5-year ban. His ban began in 2017 for misogynistic comments around the ME-TOO movement.
The incident with Musk greenlighting his own Tweets seems vapid and pointless, however when applied to the context of a man that will reinstate a man like Tate to his platform, the context changes. Musk has the ability to promote anyone on the platform to a point of omnipotence, this as a concept is already a worry but when applied to a man that is willing to give a platform to someone like Tate begins to initiate a sinking feeling.
The Twitter CEO explained to the Financial Times that the removal of permanent bans is to decrease the damage these people can cause. Tate was one of the people involved with the mass unbanning, along with other such controversial figures as Kanye and Donald trump. Musk described the idea of a permanent ban as a ‘morally bad decision’. He went on to say that
banning Trump from Twitter didn’t end Trump’s voice. It will amplify it among the right.
This is somewhat a good explanation when applied to Andrew Tate as his strategy when banned is to rally his troops to post on his behalf, magnifying his reach. Just one of his many fan account can often carry thousands of followers alone.
What is to be done? The answer to that is complex. There is no cover all solution to this problem. The obvious route is to go down is to put restrictions on the freedom these owners and conglomerates have when to comes to directing the content. This is currently happening all around the world with countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada issuing bans on TikTok on government employee’s phones. India has issued a universal ban.
In America, TikTok and its parent company are currently being sued alongside Facebooks parent company, Meta by the State of Arkansas. The grounds for all three lawsuits are based around the young audience using the app. The suit focusing of Meta is surrounding the addictive nature of a never-ending News Feed and such features as reacting to posts and image tagging, though these don’t fully link to the issue at hand they do play a small part into algorithm manipulation.
The more relevant suit comes when looking at one against Tiktok and, more appropriately its parent company, ByteDance. The complainant states that Tiktok is pushing content on young generations in the US that is to mature for the audience. Tiktok has a sister app in China named Douyin that has far more censorship for such content. Included in the mature content mentioned is nudity, substance abuse and profanity. This is a good start, although every fibre of my being is saying that censorship is restricting our human rights, but maybe that’s the way to go with it.
The United Nations Describes hate speech as
“Incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
Andrew Tate’s content falls directly into this and has been seen to happen in real time. If it’s good enough for The UN surely it is good enough to enforce on social media, without exception for celebrity, influence, or interaction. This would be the first step.
Odd isn’t it, the fact that some form of censorship might bring us closer to democracy.
Built with Shorthand