One of the great questions dominating policy in the West is how to combat and prevent terrorism. Some of the ideas have ranged from military action, changes in immigration policies and the prevention of radicalization through methods of communication such as social media.
The latter has been the most focus of most Western governments, especially the spread of extremist ideas over social media. However while the end is important, the means matter. The adoption of certain policies and tools to detect and block extremist content online is rapidly turning into an attack against our freedoms.
The latest tool being developed to combat extremism online was announced a few days ago by UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd. The instrument developed by London-based firm ASI Data Science is an unnamed algorithm that purports to detect and block extremist content online. As the Home Secretary put it, “We know that automatic technology like this can heavily disrupt the terrorists’ actions.” She also suggested that legislation may be used to force private companies to use this type of technology. Although some social media giants such as Facebook claim to have developed similar technology, the fact that this technology and algorithm is being used under the pretext of combating extremism raises very worrying questions.
The possibility of legislation being used to compel the use of this technology should concern those of us who cherish our freedoms. The use of this algorithm also raises the question of what metric is being used, who determines it, and whether policymakers should be involved in the adoption of the metric for the algorithm. For the algorithm, devoid of the necessary oversight for its design, still has flaws. For example can this artificial intelligence differentiate an online post from an extremist group from one relating to the same extremist group.
The word extremism is also not understood the same way by everyone. According to the Oxford dictionary the word extremism is defined as “The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism.” That definition only highlights the subjectivity of the word. Extremism nowadays is used and could be defined as simply an opinion not deemed trendy at this time. Indeed it has been habit of many to label political opponents as extremists for holding perfectly mainstream views.
The West is pursuing public policies putting this word in the statute books, and everyone’s freedom of thought and speech, regardless of political leaning, is under threat. If we are to pursue policy under the basis of the “extremism” and nothing more specific than that, there’s a risk that my own traditional Burkean conservatism and Catholicism will be caught in the same dragnet as the Islamic State.
Government use of technology that purports to read the mind and discern the motives of online actors is dangerous. It is the job of government to respond to terrorism and actual threats of violence, but not to define any particular opinion or line of thought as “extremist.”
Everyone who cherishes our ordered liberty must feel repulsed by the idea that our imperfect western governments are claiming such a broad mandate to cull public opinion of undesirable views using the blunt instruments of the digital age. We should stand strong against these ideas not because we support ideas that may cause harm to people, but because we treasure the God=given freedoms that we have debated or fought hard for.
Ojel L. Rodriguez Burgos AKC is a freelance writer and graduate of Kings College London.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
