It took them long enough! Finally, the Iona Institute, whose CEO is David Quinn, a columnist with The Irish Catholic, has had their ban on X (formerly Twitter for those of you as social media disinclined as I am) lifted. Crazily, the ban on advertising on Twitter was imposed in 2019, so the charity (yes, it is a Charity) has been a victim of cancel culture for almost six years.
What as their crime? According to the organisation, the ban was imposed when they tried to advertise a video about ‘The Good the Church Does’. They were totally banned from all advertising.
Charities, all kinds of charities, need to advertise to generate revenue to make their contribution to society. They also use advertising to promote positions in the public sphere and contribute to a robust civic discourse that is vital for a healthy democratic society. Social media is a growing, and important, medium for both fundraising and advocacy. Almost all charities see this route as of increasing importance. With a substantial increase in the cost of letters using An Post announced in the past weeks, the price has increased by 40% increase since 2020. The price of a standard stamp has tripled in the past two decades.
Liberty
This makes online communication even more important for communicating with supporters and donors. Which is why online censorship can be so insidious. Arguments made are that misinformation and disinformation needs to be controlled. Before we get to that argument, the question remains as to why a video talking about ‘the good the Church does’ would be considered verboten. I have seen the video and it is nothing more than factual.
That changed since X was bought by Elon Musk and all such restrictions have been removed”
But maybe they are uncomfortable facts at a time when the Church is deemed fair game, and for the culture that felt – in 2019 – that it was in the ascendency. It felt confident and brazen enough that basic civil liberties such as free speech could be ridden roughshod over. That changed since X was bought by Elon Musk and all such restrictions have been removed. It has changed since Donald Trump was elected and the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Meta realised which way the wind was blowing. Moderators who had the power to were almost impossible to question and unchallengable Orwellian responses issued to anyone who queried the reasons for being censored ‘It goes against policy’ was essentially the byline.
Commenting on the lifting of the ban, the Iona Institute noted “The lifting of the ban by ‘X’ gives us a more even playing pitch to play on now, but the original ban (which pre-dates Elon Musk’s takeover of the platform) shows how ideologically biased some of those making day-to-day decisions for these companies were (and in some cases probably still are).”
Regime
Yet, the lifting of such censorship has not been welcomed by many. There has been a quick – but probably unsustainable departure of a not unreasonable number, from X to rivals such BlueSky, often announced, ironically on X (for greatest impact), with many returning shortly after in order to benefit from the platform that X provides.
Not being an active user of Twitter or other platforms, I have struggled to understand what the angst is about since Elon Musk took over. There seems to be anger that the playing field has been levelled, and that certain voices with certain perspectives are no longer given favoured status. I have not seen anyone provide evidence that reverse censorship is now taking place – or that what might be considered ‘right’ views are being favoured over the ‘left’. If this is the case, then it is equally as bad as what occurred under the previous regime.
Free speech, liberty, is only real if it allows for the perspectives of those you disagree with to be heard”
The problem with this though, even if it is happening, those that are complaining most, were not displeased with the previous approach. I am not sure that I heard many liberal voices arguing for the Iona Institute to have its ban rescinded or defending free speech for perspectives they disagreed with.
This is the challenge. Free speech, liberty, is only real if it allows for the perspectives of those you disagree with to be heard. Free speech is not supposed to be contingent on the views espoused, yet the argument for controlling dis/misinformation is that this is dangerous and that an omnipotent authority is required to make determination on what is truth. The corollary to that is that (perceived) untruths must be suppressed rather than exposed to the light of day.
Authority
The first position assumes that determining what is truth and what is misinformation is possible and that ‘Fact-checkers’ and ‘Moderators’ are the people to do this. This is more authoritarian than the Index of Forbidden Books or Cardinal Ratzinger’s ‘censorship’ of dissident priests or theologians. Those that lament the demise of Twitter and the rise of X would be quick to point out the apparent authoritarian streak in the Church while not seeing the plank in their own.
For the Church, at least the Index was signed off by the Pope and he took responsibility for its contents. Cardinal Ratzinger, as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, did not stop theologians speaking, only from claiming to speak as Church representatives, taking positions contrary to the Church.
The law is moving in the direction of requiring social media companies to impose such censorship”
With modern day censorship, it is faceless mandarins, or more likely, bots and algorithms, that make the determinations. There is little recourse, and ironically, the law is moving in the direction of requiring social media companies to impose such censorship rather than restricting censorship as it should do in a free society.
Do you remember the Primetime exposé on the silencing of religious voices on social media? Do you remember the uproar when the Iona Institute was a victim of cancel culture? Do you remember the Irish Council for Civil Liberties or the Irish Human Rights and Equalities Commission arguing about the censorship of religious charities on Twitter?
You don’t because it didn’t happen.