An Acceptable Level of Invasion and Censorship?

           I myself have always been of the mind I was proud in the lack of censorship this country has imposed on the Internet, in direct contrast to countries like Iran, China and Cuba it was one of the things that really made me proud to be American. It wasn't I until I realized the potential threat to the democracy that I love, that I received my call to action. This blog will not presume to have a solution to the problem of privacy in the 21st Century, lack of Freedom of the Press online, or even the unconstitutional control of content online in (but not limited to) such popular forums as Google, Facebook and Twitter. The only purpose is to draw attention to the misconceptions in hopes that in defining the problem a solution can be found. 

          

           Contrary to popular belief, there is no “Right to Privacy’ specified in the Constitution of the United States of America just as there is no famed “Internet Privacy Act” as many suspect web sites would have you believe. However, a century of case law has established that rights of privacy are indeed implicit in the Bill of Rights as well as in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Therein lies half of the problem, all of our supposed protections are implied. There is no freedom of the press limitations for all of these social media sites (SMS) in which we share all of our private information. Facebook and Twitter have the rights to censor any content they don’t wish to promote, or promote any content they deem important. With the power of circulation that they possess, far greater than any newspaper, they propose a very clear and present danger to our democracy. I never even considered the fact that these SMS that we put so much faith in and attribute so much to in regards to unity and the progress we have made as an online community to be a potential dagger in the back of the democracy that had given them their wings. These SMS have a responsibility as a vehicle of conversation to remain fair and impartial and simply be a medium of discussion similar to a fax machine or telephone. As powerful mediums of communication in the 21st century they should not be allowed a voice of their own, sounds callous I know but they are far too powerful as entities to be allowed to have and/or promote their own political agenda, their responsibility begins and ends with their users.

             The Candidates of the upcoming election for the 45th President of the United States both attempt to harness the unparalleled capacity of SMS though neither has actually grasped the true nature of the beast. They both compete for the same audience but neither has understood that likes don't get you elected, if you want to try to come to our sandbox you have to learn the rules. You can't just post content, and buy ads and expect us to be engaged, you must engage us. Obama's camp tweets 4-6 times daily, posts in Facebook on their many pages on average 3-5 times a day and in both instances are literally twice what the Romney camp does. Obama's Facebook has 31 million "likes" while Romney has only 10 million. At first glance its obvious that Obama is doing more in SMS to gain advantage in this election, right? Do the numbers still seem in Obama's favor when you factor in he has been running his campaign for re-election since being elected in 2008 and Romney has been at it for little over a year? More than 80% of the content Obama posts is never delivered to his 31 million followers because most are old and lost their appeal when it comes to the "Edge Rank Algorithm"(Affinity x Wight x Time Decay = Edge Rank), while Romney's 10 million are "fresh" and hold more weight in the formula hence the content reaches its desired audience a lot more efficiently. Another example of how even the professionals truly can not grasp the magnitude of this new medium, Romney is delivering his message that much more efficiently but only out of default.

        In this past week the second of three debates was held and Republican Challenger Mitt Romney mentioned that in his proposed budget he considers cutting funding for the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) and in a quip says, "Sorry Big Bird." Before the 45 min long debate was even over there was a Facebook Page with 100,000 fans was created as well as a Twitter account with the handle @firedbigbird sprang up and immediately had 25,000 followers. Should you care that within hours that Twitter handle was terminated by Twitter? Absolutely! Just like the journalist Guy Adams who was suspended from Twitter for his criticism of the NBC coverage of the 2012 Olympics with #NBCfail, it was a clear violation of his rights of Freedom of Speech. Allowing SMS to abridge our rights is the definition of censorship. Where does it end? What if there was a political agenda for SMS corporations in which one candidate was favored over the other? What if one candidate was proposing some type of statute or legislation that would restrict SMS or worse, hinder their profits? Does it not scare you that it is 100% within their rights to silence advocates that don't share their interests, like Guy Adams? Does it not make you quiver at the thought they could use their Edge Rank Algorithms to censor content that promotes such legislation or the candidate that advocates it? That is the clear and present danger that keeps me up at night.

            While there are federal agencies that have made a valid attempt to protect such implied liberties, i.e. the privacy audits of Facebook, Twitter and Google imposed by the Federal Trade Commission. Even if one such law or amendment were to be drawn up in the United States that is where its jurisdiction would end, there is no international regulatory board or committee that could mandate SMS to limit censorship and at the same time protect our privacy.

           Should we and if so how do we regulate SMS specifically without infringing on the rights of the users? Is it really even possible?

           When I brought this issue up to one of my professors at Fordham University, he of course astounded me with insight I had not even considered but realized was crucial to my point. Professor Lance Strate, PhD is Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham as well as author of "On the Binding Biases of Time and Other Essays on General Semantics andMedia Ecology." His contention is that the loss of privacy is not only necessary but inevitable and proposes a destined shift of the social dynamic from a desire for privacy into the desire for an audience.

Prof. Lance Strate 

Author, Editor & Professor

Fordham University

"The First Amendment provides protection against government censorship of speech and the press, which was meant to allow private citizens and companies to say and print whatever they want to.  This in turns means that the owners of the press can publish whatever they want to, and not publish whatever they want to. In this sense, when Facebook, Google, or more traditional outlets decide to block content, cancel programs, not publish items, etc., this is not considered censorship, at least not as far as the First Amendment is concerned. There is precedent for requiring media that use public resources, such as the airwaves, cables run over public land, etc., to include a certain amount of public service content and to be otherwise regulated regarding commercial and political material, and perhaps it could be argued that the Internet that was set up by the government and uses some public resources is in the same category, but then again anyone can create a website with whatever content they want. Facebook, Twitter, etc., are private corporations, and they certainly allow for plenty of public service content anyway.  As for privacy, while there are some legal and policy issues, and Google, Facebook, and other Internet companies are involved in various controversies regarding privacy, the general bias of the electronic media is against privacy, which McLuhan correctly identified as a creation of literacy and print. Privacy was unknown before writing was invented, the ancient Greek term for privacy was synonymous with idiot, Hannah Arendt points out that the root meaning of privacy is the same as deprived, as in one deprived of a public role and identity, and the constitution has no such guarantee because the emphasis on privacy was only gradually developing in the 18th century. With new media, privacy is dying, and I don't see any way to stop it. I've said this many times, in a generation or two they won't even understand what we were concerned about, and where we were concerned about loss of privacy, their concern will be loss of an audience."

                Professor Strate also directed me to the works of David Brin, Author of "The Transparent Society". Not only had David Brin eerily predicted the demolition of the World Trade Centers by acts of terrorism in 1998 (3 years before 9/11) but also the ensuing legislation known as The Patriot Act. His Predictions were based on the prior failed attempt at the WTC in 1996 so he is not exactly a prophet but his ability to anticipate the reactions of the public and how the government would use their fear to create the act shows his incredible sagaciousness. Mr. Brin's View on transparent society are similar to Professor Strate's in that the loss of privacy is inevitable, the human race must contend with the evolution of media and communication and make the choice between freedom and privacy. His argument, very simply, is that the loss of privacy will go both ways. Eventually we will sacrifice our own privacy but at the same time so will the "elites" and in that lies the transparency, the loss of privacy will be reciprocated. He describes it as the return of "the Village", the reunification of the human race into one society. 
      
              While in theory a transparent society may be the next step in this communication revolution, I do not see the full transparency a possibility therefore it will simply be a rouse. "Big Brother" will never allow it, there will always be a means of control and there will always be people at the helm. My opinion, fight for your privacy. Fight for your right to freedom of speech. Fight for your liberty. As of January 1, 2013 employers in the state of Illinois will no longer be allowed to demand Facebook passwords from their employees. You don't think the request is infringing on the applicant's liberty? Why should it be tolerated anywhere in this country? We the people must fight and continue to fight just as our fathers and forefathers before us for all of the rights and liberties that we take for granted each day.  There will always be someone trying to trample our liberties for their own gain, in the 21st century they won't be in red coats, they'll in 3 piece suits instead.