Information Fascism: How the Open Web was Betrayed by its 'Advocates'

Conversations online involving politics and/or religion are frequently associated with the weird and the dramatic. The nadir for many such exchanges tends towards accusations of  being a "fascist" or "racist" or some other fashionable political pejorative being thrown around. I particularly find the term "fascist" to be the most laughable, mostly because people tend to be hopelessly liberal with the term for the sake of spiting someone they don't like. As George Orwell wrote in 1944:

"the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'".

Scholars and historians have a hard time defining what is or isn’t fascism. Ordinary people tend to label people they dislike as fascists. In many cases this name calling does not escalate beyond an online skirmish. But, in recent times, some of these name callers have begun to implement their belief into actual social policies in the real world: we’ve begun to see some of the biggest advocates of the open web and web technology: tech companies and statesmen and women in Liberal Democracies and Republics, openly endorsing the idea that perceived fascists should be openly censored without any means to defend or appeal. This is whole new level of political stupidity coming from the powers that be, and a dangerous trend that may threaten to turn the whole web into its censored, state-sponsored Chinese equivalent.

The recent collective ban imposed on InfoWars by many of the major tech players online is but one example of this growing trend. I venture to say that we are seeing the beginnings of a general endorsement of methods/tactics that can be collectively labelled as "Information Fascism", the total ban of anything deemed unacceptable by these tech giants and the ilk who blindly support/petition them (the governments of Europe and America in particular).

But hang on, didn't we just say that it is hard to define Fascism? And besides, surely banning things such as hate speech, outright bigotry, and enforcing an atmosphere of diversity of thoughts and ideas is a good thing? Indeed, that is probably good. However, diversity movement has become increasingly cynical with regards to its views on permissibility of speech, which I find to be abhorrent. The movement's insistence of rights based on class is in conflict with basic egalitarian values, rule of law and human equality. It is no surprise that there has been a backlash, offline and online. A backlash that has resulted in the some of the movement's adherents advocating for complete censorship of characters and ideas that openly challenge their severely flawed and inconsistent class and identity politics platform. And if that isn't enough, we have the Antifa group, an aggressive group that prefer to argue with their fists than anything else.

Censorship backed by violence happens to be a fundamental quality of an intolerant, fascist society. The diversity is rendered meaningless if people are threatened and "de-platformed" for speaking out their minds against the intolerant "cultural establishment". While Antifa is perhaps limited by its numbers and ideology (despite the abundance of misguided sympathisers), the adoption of online censorship without appeal by states and tech giants undermines and betrays the spirit of the web and affects our entire civilisation. We have basically turned the whole web into the Chinese web.

What difference is there between the Chinese social web and the rest of the world in the Era of Censorship?

Good intentions almost always have second order, sometimes negative, consequences. Empowering tech giants with the unspoken right to censor and ban without appeal, people online on platforms that can arguably be called "social public goods" introduces the possibility of creating a national community of privileged, dominant bullies who can potentially lead the rest to destruction, simply because they fail to consider other lines of thought. The Internet via social media has a tangible effect on our laws and governments. Therefore, it is important to not rob people of the right to freely express their honest thoughts simply because certain influential people (the "cultural bourgeoisie") find their ideas detestable.

The Internet's giant platforms have the power to shape the conversation, and thus people. Tech giants are arbitrators that should not exist ideally. But they do exist nevertheless. Their influencing the conversation will potentially allow the state via co-operations to create truly fascist communities via unilateral censorship. Here we discover the fundamental definition of Fascism, with help from classical liberal economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek:

“Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion.”

You could replace "communism" with "Californian utopianism" or "Silicon valley utopianism" or even "techno-utopianism". No utopia can survive criticism or true diversity of ideas. And that is why utopians would rather censor and ban ideological dissidents so they can unite people in their state-sponsored, corporate dream of apparent utopia. And in the process of creating a "safe" social utopia online, tech giants risk creating the very society that they claim to fight against, through information fascism.

A Flimsy Foundation

Today, I felt a strong desire to respond to the BBC’s recent point of view article titled “A long winter for Christians in the Middle East” for the sake of offering an alternative angle on an otherwise interesting article IMHO. The reader should be warned that we are delving into very deep and passionate mire of social science and theology with a dash of Middle Eastern dynamic, all subjects worthy of knowledge harvesting. If any or all of these subjects give you indigestion, you are free to go on to other articles on this blog.

In a recent BBC point of view article, William Dalrymple (a Scottish catholic travel writer) talks about how the “Arab Spring” has given rise to a winter for the Middle East’s 14 million strong Christians, forcing mass emigrations on scale never before seen since the Iraq war of 2003. As protests morphed to armed struggles and opposition forces become more radicalised in different states, the spirit of communal activities and togetherness has seemingly been torn apart (maybe forever) in many Arab and Middle-Eastern states, particularly in Syria.

Mr. Darymple goes on to illustrate the dimensions of this communal spirit in these areas, mentioning Mughal art sporting apparently Christian scriptural quotations (which he rightly points out are probably from non-canonical texts which have been rejected by mainstream Christians but have somehow been incorporated into Islamic thought).

An example of Mughal art depicting the crowning of a
new ruler. All in all, they are quite beautiful
(Commons)

It is here that the article finally reaches a crescendo of reasoning; Mr. Dalrymple talks about a Mughal manuscript dating back to the 16^th Century that now resides in the British Library that contains an illustration of the Nativity but with features that are undeniably Qur’anic (i.e. oasis and palm trees instead of a stable) in nature. With this, the author further reasons that this picture shows how much devotion that Muslim rulers apparently showed to the Christians’ Lord and that it is above the simplistic thinking associated with the ‘clash of civilisations’ (he mentions Samuel Huntington’s book and theory by the same name).

In short, ladies and gentleman; Christians and Muslims both believe in the Nativity and therefore Christmas is Mr. Dalrymple’s solution for rebuilding a brotherly foundation between these two communities. He delivers the coup de grace at the end of the article where he describes the commonality of these groups is “... to gather around the Christ child and pray for peace.”

This is a dramatic piece of theological mediation with a major flaw, a flaw that has cost Syrians once and is now being put forward again to risk them again (this time by a writer and not a diplomat/politician). There was a time when people hoped that the Sunni rebel fighters would identify with national unity, commonality with the diversity of their country and other secular ideals to win the fight against tyranny. Instead, we have a rebel force that is further being assimilated into radical Islamism, fuelled by the socio-religious and cultural differences between communities as well as better organisation and funding. Now Christmas is being touted (I sincerely hope not by politicians eventually) as a foundation for peace in the hope that the rebel Islamist fighters would identify with the Nativity and stop fighting. If even Ramadhan could not stop the fighting, what hope is there in relying on a tradition that is more prominently associated with Christians than with Muslims? We cannot afford to force-build on flimsy foundations.

Instead, I offer my own, alternative theological argument; both sides view Jesus as a figure of authority. He once said we should love our enemies. This can therefore be used as a basis of peace because it is more of a command than a theological tradition. The catch; it is more closely identified with Christians than with Muslims (perhaps the moderates might accept it but they are rapidly being assimilated or swept away by radicals). Nevertheless, enforcing this fundamental commandment into both sides’ psyche might be the only way to build a reasonably more solid foundation than Mr. Dalrymple’s tradition argument for peace.

Finally, with regard to the clash of civilisations, I have this to say; neighbours are different just as civilisations are different. Despite those differences, we tend to coexist because not only is it beneficial to communal peace and prosperity but also because it is morally more praiseworthy. But clashes are there in the form of friendly arguments at the market place or bazaar (this is from experience). We can prevent those clashes from becoming more serious by nurturing trust, freedom of thought and respect for life (with a scriptural base to boost). These are the keys to a solid foundation that will prevent things like this from happening.