THE Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded to journalists Maria Ressa and Dimitry Muratiov on Friday “for their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace.”
Ressa has opposed Filipino dictator Rodrigo Duterte. She has faced hate campaigns and death threats, multiplied online. She attributes the decline of democratic values around the world to choices made miles away, at Facebook’s California headquarters.
The social media giant is one of the world’s leading publishers of misinformation and hate. In response, Ressa – together with other civil rights leaders – launched the independent Real Facebook Oversight Board.
Facebook has been used to incite violence against minority groups across the globe.
Worryingly, Facebook whistle-blower Francis Haugen Haugen asserts, “I have no doubt that the events we are seeing around the world in Myanmar and Ethiopia, those are the opening chapters.”
The dangers that communities, and indeed whole nations, face from Facebook have their roots in the personal sphere. They are consequences of the absence of protections at the level of individuals, particularly for the most vulnerable, including children.
Those who spend hours each day on Facebook or Instagram are residents not just of Scotland but also of the global digital world. Here, laws that protect us in the physical world are inadequate.
For instance, protection that stems from the human rights principles are largely tied to citizenship. Without citizenship, human dignity is vulnerable and without digital citizens’ rights there are few modes of defence for our digital identities.
Facebook, which also owns WhatsApp and Instagram, has global reach and yields international influence. Its $1trillion market capitalisation exceeds the annual GDP of Saudia Arabia or Switzerland. Facebook is more than a company – it is a superpower.
Political systems that don’t embrace the rule of law usually stem from strongman arrangements. Here, power lies with a person who controls resources, who can share them or take them away, however they see fit. Neither rules nor facts matter, affairs are controlled by the interests of the ruling class.
Underlying Facebook’s business model is a mathematical formulation of behavioural modification. Our private beliefs and desires are analysed and mirrored back to us, with the intention to change our online behaviour for Facebook’s needs, specifically to increase revenue when auctioning human attention to advertisers.
While our behaviour is tuned towards the most profitable outcomes, our self-worth is undermined. We are seduced by an alternate reality that leads us to ignore the social, economic, and environmental repercussions that follow from relentless prioritisation of growth. On a societal level, the clandestine removal of autonomy prevents critical thinking and moral judgement. Both, preconditions of a democratic society.
To manipulate users, the platform provides a few voices with disproportionate audiences which they could never reach without Facebook. As a result, a system of mass propaganda has been created. It can be dialled up or down according to the judgement of the platform’s leadership.
Following criticism of its role in UK and US elections in 2016, Facebook chose not to change its amplification mechanism.
Instead it sacrificed freedom of speech. It build an unprecedented system for global censorship. The rules are chosen unilaterally. They are opaque, change arbitrarily, and are applied unequally. They benefit the powerful and silence marginalised groups.
Ressa’s prize reminds us that what happens digitally has consequences in the physical world.
Importantly, it is not AI systems that behave dangerously.
As we count the human cost of Facebook’s operations, human accountability must be reestablished. At the same time, human dignity must be protected in the digital world by strengthening – not undermining – human rights legislation nationally and through international collaboration.
Gabriele Schweikert is principal investigator computational biology at Dundee University
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel