On May 2, Facebook and Instagram banned several controversial figures from their platforms, ranging from Nation of Islam leader and known anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan to famed conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. In a statement, Facebook branded the figures “dangerous.” While they certainly all peddle reprehensible ideas, the only thing that’s truly dangerous is Facebook’s decision to censor ideas rather than engage with them through dialogue.
Bad ideas are legitimized when they’re suppressed. To defeat bad ideas, we must actually engage our ideological opponents.
One of the ban’s targets, internet provocateur and Infowars contributor Paul Joseph Watson, immediately retreated to Twitter to decry “censorship” and the “suppression of dissent.” Jones has called the event a “purge.” Farrakhan has yet to respond, but his reaction will likely be equally negative, given his extensive history of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
Frankly, it is a purge: Facebook is not trifling with low-brow, inconsequential commentators, it’s attacking entire movements. Nearly 23% of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job. Similarly, 21% buy into a “world government” conspiracy. Both of these far-fetched theories were made famous by Jones and his cohorts.
These people believe the government is attempting to deceive them. No matter how outlandish that may be, Facebook only feeds such paranoia by attempting to squash it. After all, silencing people who already think they’re oppressed, as most fringe voices do, only further entrenches their beliefs.
The result? Inflamed conspiracies, galvanized crackpots, and more misinformation. In other words, the exact opposite of Facebook’s intent.
Facebook’s reliance on vague buzzwords to justify its decision leaves much to be desired. In the company’s statement about the ban, they claim they’ve always removed users who push “hate.” When asked how they decide what constitutes hate, Facebook cites whether the user had a “hateful ideology” or whether they use “hate speech.”
While no one should support true hate, the idea of “hate speech” is incredibly subjective, and has been used historically to unfairly malign and censor dissenting views. “Hate speech” is an utterly relative term that cannot be assessed objectively, and therefore it’s rife for abuse. From Facebook’s vantage point, “hate speech” censorship might provide some relief from the relentless criticism they have faced. In the war of ideas, however, it is devastating.
The people who Facebook targeted all predate the internet. After all, Farrakhan was active during their era of Malcolm X in the 1960s, and Jones has been spreading conspiratorial drivel since the 1990s. They both understand how to operate in non-digital environments and, in a world becoming more technology-based every day, that truly is dangerous. Without the ability to monitor these people and confront them in front of millions online, they become stealthy operators, spewing their rhetoric to sympathetic audiences behind closed proverbial doors, and freely corrupting our discourse.
For example, 99.98% of Infowars’ web traffic are now unique hits, while very few come through Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, all platforms that have banned Jones and many of his cohorts. Meanwhile, Farrakhan routinely draws thousands to his speeches. If Facebook’s intent is to limit the influence of these “dangerous” individuals by trying to shut them down, they are blind to reality and are doing a disservice to themselves, their users, and the rest of us interested in defeating these ideas, rather than letting them fester in the dark.
Still, with the rise of the alt-right and lingering racial violence, it’s easy to be tricked by the idea of confronting hate or “violent speech” through similarly forceful means. After all, Jones caused immense trouble to the parents of Sandy Hook victims after falsely labeling them “crisis actors,” hired actors who supposedly faked the entire event, and Farrakhan constantly maligns Jewish people, who are experiencing historic rates of anti-Semitic violence.
Yet this line of reasoning, while well-intentioned, is fundamentally unsound. The more exposure given to misinformation and bad ideas, the easier they can be deciphered and debunked. Speech that incites hate or harm to another cannot and will not be prevented by silence.
If Facebook and its contemporaries keep treading down the path of censorship, bad ideas will only seem more legitimate to those who already believe in conspiracies. Not only is that bad for Facebook, but it’s also terrible for our current political climate, which is already tarred with half-truths, loaded rhetoric, and baseless claims.
Christian Watson (@OfficialCWatson) is a writer at Young Voices.
