Impassable or Impossible: A Theological Look at Tech Censorship
Chances are, if you are reading this blog, you found it on either Facebook or Twitter. Maybe you found this article in a Google search. Such would be the norm on the internet. According to a May 2017 Business Insider report, 80% of all online referral traffic comes from Google and Facebook alone.
Referral traffic, by the way, refers to the visits to a website that come from another source - like a search engine, social media, or a link on another website. Referral traffic is the opposite of "direct" traffic, or visits to a website that come from a user-entered URL. If I visit the NYTimes via Google, I'm a referred visitor. If I type nytimes.com into my browser, I'm a direct visitor. Direct website traffic now accounts for just 17-20% of website traffic, meaning that we pay a visit to the Google/Facebook toll booth nearly every time we access content on the web.
Until now, this has not appeared to be particularly problematic - in fact, quite the opposite. Google and Facebook are incredibly useful tools for accessing content on the internet. The ubiquity and utility of the technological giants in our midst is why Google can claim that their search and advertising tools generate over two-hundred billion annually in global economic impact.
But recently, Google and Facebook have come under intense pressures to filter, moderate, and screen-out unsavory content. In reaction to Russia's 2016 cyber-meddling with the American elections, technology firms are increasingly under public scrutiny for the content they serve up to users like you and me.
This scrutiny is important. Do we really want to live in a world where ISIS can livestream atrocities on Facebook Live, a world where I can inadvertently and unintentionally stumble on such grisly content? Less provocatively, do we want to inhabit an internet where digital services distribute falsehoods with impunity? Given how Facebook and Google have become society's defacto purveyors of truth and authority, the question of content screening is urgent and essential.
We seem to be in an impossible position. We need Google and Facebook to screen and moderate their content - to protect minors, but also to prevent the worst of humanity from accessing a bully pulpit. But we also cannot accept an internet where content filtered out by Google and Facebook is cast into the digital abyss, rendered inaccessible and unavailable.
Google and Facebook are, after all, ad-generated platforms that print cash by the click. The two for-profit firms combined for over $140 Billion in 2017 revenue. Could we headed to a future where Google and Facebook only distribute that which is approved by their highest bidders? The growth in advertising real estate on the Google search results page suggests that this is a possibility.
So perhaps if we are to designate a filter for digital content, we ought not choose a filter that is so beholden to corporate interests and advertising agencies. But there are no good choices in the debate of content moderation. There is no solution that can adeptly balance the need for the free-flow of information against the necessity that a considerable quantity of content is not fit for mass consumption. Our only path to a solution involves an intentional, prolonged, and public debate that engages all who have a stake in the future of the web (which is all of us).
Theology, with its capacity to simultaneously evaluate ethics, tradition, and scripture, should have a stake in this debate. The Christian theological tradition is inherently a tradition of change, reevaluation, and adaptation to the movements of a God who is always at work in the world (hence what appear to be contradictions in Biblical texts). At the heart of the Christian tradition are three critical questions:
@ryanpanzer is a contradictory and relativistic blogger who works for the technology industry. He believes in free speech and corporate social responsibility, censorship and unfettered access to information, absolute truth and ever-shifting authority.
Referral traffic, by the way, refers to the visits to a website that come from another source - like a search engine, social media, or a link on another website. Referral traffic is the opposite of "direct" traffic, or visits to a website that come from a user-entered URL. If I visit the NYTimes via Google, I'm a referred visitor. If I type nytimes.com into my browser, I'm a direct visitor. Direct website traffic now accounts for just 17-20% of website traffic, meaning that we pay a visit to the Google/Facebook toll booth nearly every time we access content on the web.
Until now, this has not appeared to be particularly problematic - in fact, quite the opposite. Google and Facebook are incredibly useful tools for accessing content on the internet. The ubiquity and utility of the technological giants in our midst is why Google can claim that their search and advertising tools generate over two-hundred billion annually in global economic impact.
But recently, Google and Facebook have come under intense pressures to filter, moderate, and screen-out unsavory content. In reaction to Russia's 2016 cyber-meddling with the American elections, technology firms are increasingly under public scrutiny for the content they serve up to users like you and me.
This scrutiny is important. Do we really want to live in a world where ISIS can livestream atrocities on Facebook Live, a world where I can inadvertently and unintentionally stumble on such grisly content? Less provocatively, do we want to inhabit an internet where digital services distribute falsehoods with impunity? Given how Facebook and Google have become society's defacto purveyors of truth and authority, the question of content screening is urgent and essential.
We seem to be in an impossible position. We need Google and Facebook to screen and moderate their content - to protect minors, but also to prevent the worst of humanity from accessing a bully pulpit. But we also cannot accept an internet where content filtered out by Google and Facebook is cast into the digital abyss, rendered inaccessible and unavailable.
Google and Facebook are, after all, ad-generated platforms that print cash by the click. The two for-profit firms combined for over $140 Billion in 2017 revenue. Could we headed to a future where Google and Facebook only distribute that which is approved by their highest bidders? The growth in advertising real estate on the Google search results page suggests that this is a possibility.
So perhaps if we are to designate a filter for digital content, we ought not choose a filter that is so beholden to corporate interests and advertising agencies. But there are no good choices in the debate of content moderation. There is no solution that can adeptly balance the need for the free-flow of information against the necessity that a considerable quantity of content is not fit for mass consumption. Our only path to a solution involves an intentional, prolonged, and public debate that engages all who have a stake in the future of the web (which is all of us).
Theology, with its capacity to simultaneously evaluate ethics, tradition, and scripture, should have a stake in this debate. The Christian theological tradition is inherently a tradition of change, reevaluation, and adaptation to the movements of a God who is always at work in the world (hence what appear to be contradictions in Biblical texts). At the heart of the Christian tradition are three critical questions:
- What is true?
- What is authoritative?
- Where is God?
Such might be a useful evaluative instrument for digital content moderation.
Our first filter - what is true? Does this faithfully and honestly depict reality? Or is it a distortion, an objective falsehood, a lie? Digital content that is true should pass through to:
Our second filter - what is authoritative? Many things are true. Not everything is authoritative. I believe it is true that some ancient Hebrews practiced animal sacrifice, and through animal sacrifice, they found themselves drawing nearer to God. I am not willing to join up with any faith community that views animal sacrifice as authoritative to their present day practice. Digital content deemed to be useful and authoritative should be universally accessible. But perhaps our polarized, partisan world needs something more than the sinking of sand of truth and authority. And so:
Our final filter - where is God? Where is there goodness, grace, and mercy? Where is there hardship that seems insurmountable? Where is there relationship? Where is brokenness? The God of Abraham, the God of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, starts with a commitment to bless and be faithful to humanity, especially where there is hurt and hardship. Digital content that ever so softly speaks a word of promise amidst impossibility, a faint promise of love in a world fraught with destruction, is the content that should be universally promoted.
The topics of tech censorship and content moderation are here to stay. These are lifelong issues for all of us. So start recognizing where your content is coming from. Start evaluating your standards of truth and authority. And start searching thinking about what God might mean in your contexts. Otherwise, Google and Facebook will do this work for you - and print piles of corporate cash in the process.
@ryanpanzer is a contradictory and relativistic blogger who works for the technology industry. He believes in free speech and corporate social responsibility, censorship and unfettered access to information, absolute truth and ever-shifting authority.
Comments
Post a Comment