Transhumanity
where strange brilliant ideas for the future intermingle and breed…

Home > Articles > The Digital World - hate speech, the internet, and far-right troglodytes

The Digital World - hate speech, the internet, and far-right troglodytes

Posted: Sun, February 10, 2013 | By: Special Guest



by Enrique Lescure

Right now, one of the major national discussions (in Sweden) is about hate speech on the Internet. It seems like Swedish mainstream media is interested in turning this into a “gun control debate”. Yesterday, there was a documentary on Uppdrag Granskning which pointed out the vile hatred and slander directed against young women on the Internet who are expressing opinions related to feminism or immigration. The hatred is directed from the usual suspects – far right trolodytes. It is not directly expressed in the documentary, but implicitly understood, that Uppdrag Granskning (and major liberal and socialist media outlets like Aftonbladet, Expressen and so on) would want to see increased monitoring of the Internet.

To a large extent, the Internet has become a haven for anti-establishment misfits – of whom a large amount are “angry white males”. In Sweden, the largest discussion forum is Flashback, and it has come to be defined by a politically reactionary discourse marked by resistance against immigration, anti-feminism, racism, pro-prostitution and pro-drug legalisation opinions, largely reflecting a demographic which is overwhelmingly male, young and angry. Internationally, one of the largest political forums is /pol/ on 4chan, and it is too pock-marked by racism, sexism and anti-egalitarian views.

While I would say that more politeness and less political cheerleading (as opposed to political discussion) is needed in society overall, I do believe this focus on the Internet as something negative is expressing something else. In the 1990s, the Internet was overall viewed as a positive thing for Mainstream Media, because it was a part of the “end-of-the-cold-war”-discourse and because it created growth opportunities on a new market. Now, when alternative media is starting to outcompete traditional media outlets, Mainstream Media feels the old traditional urge to restrict and control the competition in order to keep their privileges. Because legally, the sites are responsible for the content according to Swedish law, not the individual posters.

The Internet knows no borders either. Flashback has been banned in Sweden since the 1990s, but is hosted on foreign servers. Thus, any new regulations would probably lead to counter-reactions.

Ultimately, the political left should not ally with governments and major corporations in curbing the Internet. Firstly because the left too is (?) opposed to the establishment that is and is imagining an alternative world. Secondly, to give the government the authority to control the Internet will create even more resistance, and probably a merger between the xenophobic troglodytes and the Internet anarchists (Wikileaks, Anonymous), which can only retard the development of a progressive social discourse (but that would be beneficial to the powers that be).

The nation-state cannot any more hope to control the currents of information. Of course, hate speech, rabble-rousing, child pornography and other vile and damaging content needs to be removed from the Internet – because real human beings are hurt. That creates the need for a compromise. I believe that instead of fighting the hacker community, civil society would need to approach the hackers and arm them with the authority to act as a cleaning brigade on the Internet, targeting illegal content.

At the same time, I also believe that there has been too much web politics based around the idea that everything that people don’t like should be abolished. At the end, that would lead to a conflict where we try to remove things instead of debating them, and no one would be better off because of such censorship.

Apart from the governments and mega-corporations.

This essay was first published at Enrique’s Eos Horizon blog HERE



Comments:

As a radical transhumanist living in a society where anti-transhumanist values are largely hegemonic I am wary of calling for action against the mere opinions of “anti-establishment misfits” (would by any chance one thing imply the other?), of whatever more or less repugnant sort they may be - hey, but as hate speech goes we do not appear to be above name-calling ourselves, “troglodytes”, etc..

The consideration that one of these times we might well be the ones in the crosshairs of campaigns, and more importantly *legislation*, aimed at regulating what can or cannot be said on the Net, should give pause even to those who amongst us are not especially concerned with freedom of speech and think that China or Iran are doing just fine in this respect.

By Stefano Vaj on Feb 11, 2013 at 2:35am

In Weberian terms, laws have to be legitimate. If the laws are not considered legitimate by the people, then they would lead to confrontation or corruption. I believe that the Internet must get the tools to regulate itself.

With kind regards
/Enrique Lescure

By Enrique on Feb 11, 2013 at 2:35pm


Leave a Comment:

Note We practice Buddhist Right Speech in our communication. All comments must be polite, friendly, and on topic.







What color is a blue sky?



Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Books

Acidexia
Acidexia
Living Architecture: How Synthetic Biology Can Remake Our Cities and Reshape Our Lives
Living Architecture: How Synthetic Biology Can Remake Our Cities and Reshape Our Lives
The Left Hand of Darkness
The Left Hand of Darkness
More Books
Videos
The Designer Vagina Clinic
The Designer Vagina Clinic
Introducing ‘Rex’ - Britain’s First $1 Million Bionic Man
Introducing ‘Rex’ - Britain’s First $1 Million Bionic Man
Aziz Aboobaker - Neverending DNA and Immortal Worms
Aziz Aboobaker - Neverending DNA and Immortal Worms
More Videos