No one’s civil liberties are violated by a ban on the far-right Infowars | Michael Segalov

Platforms such as Apple and Facebook are not engaging in censorship: they are deciding not to profit from hate

It’s nearly a decade since BNP leader Nick Griffin was invited to appear on Question Time, arguably one of the BBC’s most irresponsible decisions. There’s an often repeated, but flawed suggestion that the presence of the British National party on the corporation’s flagship current affairs show back in 2009 led to the party’s downfall. I get it – it’s reassuring to think that when scrutinised, hateful prejudice can be defeated with the power of rational words.

Except a quick look at the BNP’s polling history suggests the opposite: in the 2005 general election the BNP had pulled in 192,850 votes across the UK. By 2010, that figure was 514,819. According to a YouGov opinion poll conducted in the hours after Griffin appeared on the programme, voter support for the far-right party had increased from 2 to 3%. The BNP itself reported 3,000 new members joined its ranks that night.

“The more important long-term effect was that Griffin’s appearance broke the taboo on giving far-right politicians and commentators a platform,” explains Daniel Trilling, author of Bloody Nasty People. “And it helped normalise views that have since been expressed by others to be regarded as more respectable.”

It only takes a quick look around the British media today to see this in action: Nigel Farage hosts an LBC radio show in which he chats chummily to Steve Bannon; Breitbart editor Raheem Kassam is invited on to the BBC unopposed to defend Tommy Robinson’s Islamophobia and racial hate. Ukip spokespeople continue to appear on our television screens to discuss Brexit, despite the fact that the party has now turned its attention to anti-Muslim policies.

Twitter’s decision this week not to kick Infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones from its site is another example of a media platform refusing to take responsibility for the hatred it hosts. The lazy explanation, “we strongly believe Twitter should not be the arbiter of truth” displays a wilful misunderstanding of the responsibilities of publishers. It’s as meaningless as TV shows saying they’ll host racists in the interests of “balance” and “fair debate”.

It’s time we accept that there’s no such thing as an impartial media, and that giving a platform to racists legitimises their ideas and language. When it comes to creating space for the far right, we can draw a red line.

All platforms, whether print, digital, broadcast or social, make active choices every day about the content they publish, produce and share. Television commissioners decide which documentaries or comedies make it to transmission, producers on news shows make a call as to who is invited on air. Every article has been through a commissioning and editing process. And that’s before we consider who hires whom; who’s the editor and the proprietor? On top of all this there are commercial interests. The same can be said for social media: algorithms, privacy policies, advertising and terms of use determine what we see when we scroll. Both social and traditional media decide which ideas to distribute, it’s as simple as that.

That’s why it’s no affront to liberty if the likes of Apple, YouTube, Facebook and Spotify finally take a stand and kick Infowars off their platforms – even if there could have been greater transparency about the decision-making process. This isn’t a matter of private companies silencing voices or engaging in censorship, but deciding not to profit from hate.

Campaigns led by the public are one way to demand action from publishers and platforms. The Sleeping Giants account brought about a steep decline in advertising revenues on Bannon’s far-right Breitbart website after naming and shaming the companies keeping the site afloat. After Sky News Australia interviewed a far-right extremist, a handful of companies pulled ads from the channel this week, spurred on by public pressure: American Express, Huggies and Specsavers among them.

But this approach is a stopgap: what’s needed is a radical change in tactics from the media in all its forms. It’s no good for companies with such power to shirk responsibility for the hatred they are spreading. It’s not good enough to say, as Twitter has, that journalists should just fact-check conspiracy theories on the platform’s behalf. If Infowars, which has claimed the Sandy Hook shooting was faked, accused Hillary Clinton of using “illegal” migrants to rig the US election and pushed the racist Obama birther conspiracy, doesn’t breach Twitter’s guidelines, then the rules need fixing, they aren’t a codified constitution.

Giving a platform to racists doesn’t just legitimise and amplify their voices; it has serious consequences offline too. A 2018 study by the University of Warwick is uncompromising: “Our findings suggest that social media has not only become a fertile soil for the spread of hateful ideas but also motivates real-life action.” One only need look to Infowars’ founder Jones’s part in spreading the Pizzagate conspiracy theory: a case in which fake news stories claiming that Hillary Clinton oversaw a child abuse ring at a Washington DC restaurant led to an incident with a gunman. It wasn’t long ago that Labour MP Jo Cox was brutally murdered. Islamophobic incidents are at an all time high.

The fight against bigotry and fascism won’t be won just by booting the likes of Jones off Twitter, or refusing to give Islamophobes airtime. There needs to be political education and work in local communities. We’ll need to stand alongside our neighbours when racists march dangerously through our city streets. But media, both traditional and social, has a part to play too.

And if it sounds as though what I’m advocating is an affront to free speech: the far-right have no more of a “right” to appear on our screens than my grandma, a spider or a member of Isis. We can’t have rational debates with people who think others of certain religions, races, sexualities or genders should be denied their right to exist in safety. It’s no affront to civil liberties that you’ve not got your own TV show, and having a Twitter account isn’t a human right.

• Michael Segalov is the news editor at Huck magazine and a freelance journalist


Michael Segalov

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Katie Price is right. Disabled people shouldn’t be forced off the internet by abuse | Gaby Hinsliff
If the social media giants can’t prevent abuse, then parliament should protect minority groups, says Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff

Gaby Hinsliff

22, Jan, 2019 @11:05 AM

Article image
The public execution of Infowars is dangerous and counterproductive | Silkie Carlo
In cutting off the rightwing media outlet without explanation, the social media companies have simply fed the conspiracists, writes Silkie Carlo of Big Brother Watch

Silkie Carlo

10, Aug, 2018 @8:38 AM

Article image
Online abuse of disabled people is getting worse – when will it be taken seriously? | Frances Ryan
New research shows the extent of this depressing trend. Social media platforms and MPs have to get a grip of it, says Guardian columnist Frances Ryan

Frances Ryan

10, May, 2019 @6:00 AM

Article image
Social media spying is turning us into a stalking society | Keza MacDonald
Facebook, Twitter and others must act on misuse and abuse or face the ongoing “techlash”, says the Guardian’s games editor, Kez MacDonald

Keza MacDonald

13, Feb, 2018 @3:58 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on censoring the internet: necessary, but not easy | Editorial
Editorial: Who should protect us online? And who will guard us from these guards?


21, Aug, 2017 @5:34 PM

Article image
Internet companies warn over government email surveillance plans
Firms concerned that coalition's proposals to monitor email and social media could be misused by autocratic regimes. By Josh Halliday

Josh Halliday

02, Apr, 2012 @3:37 PM

Article image
I worked at Facebook - here’s how to fix social media’s political ads problem | Clare O’Donoghue Velikić
I know abuses have given online ads a bad name, but banning them isn’t the answer, says Clare O’Donoghue Velikić

Clare O'Donoghue Velikić

06, Dec, 2019 @1:30 PM

Article image
Online politics needs to be cleaned up – but not just by Facebook and Twitter | Lisa-Maria Neudert and Phil Howard
Social media platforms do have a role to play, but real change requires political parties to take responsibility, say Lisa-Maria Neudert and Phil Howard of the Oxford Technology and Elections Commission

Lisa-Maria Neudert and Phil Howard

11, Nov, 2019 @3:15 PM

Article image
Social media polarises and radicalises – and MPs aren’t immune to its effects | Charles Arthur
Politicians in closed Facebook or WhatsApp groups become more extreme in their views. They need to recognise this, says Charles Arthur, author of Cyber Wars: Hacks That Shocked the Business World

Charles Arthur

11, Mar, 2019 @3:13 PM

Article image
Ignore Zuckerberg. With skill and imagination we can drive the haters offline | Zoe Williams
The idea that tech giants are too big to control is nonsense, says Guardian columnist Zoe Williams

Zoe Williams

31, Jul, 2018 @5:00 AM