“A democratic Government “Jana Rajya” must also be rooted in Dharma i.e. a “Dharma Rajya”. In the definition of ‘Democracy’ viz. “government of the people, by the people and for the people”, of stands for independence, ‘by’ stands for democracy and ‘for’ Indicates Dharma. Therefore, the true democracy is only where there is freedom as well as Dharma encompasses all these concepts”. – Pt Deendayal Upadhyaya, in his third lecture on Integral Humanism delivered on April 24, 1965
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook (now Meta), made a high-profile confession to the Judicial Committee of the House of Representatives, and this should have created ripples in the democratic world. Surprisingly, the shocking confession was received as an ‘open secret’. Some free speech and open society proponents even tried to celebrate it by certifying the tech giant and its founder for the courageous act. Why discussing and debating democracy in this particular case study should be a matter of concern not just for Americans but for the entire world is the critical question here.
As per Zuckerberg’s confession, the Biden-Harris administration “pressured” Facebook to “censor” free speech on Facebook — specifically ‘misinformation’ about COVID-19 and his company complied with the same. The letter also referred to Hunter Biden’s laptop, which was passed on as the ‘Russian disinformation’ by conducting a fact-checking and demoting the story. Indirectly, he admitted the allegations of his financial support to Biden’s campaign and declared that he would stay away from the present election cycle by not spending money. Remember, he did this not as a favour but because Representative Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, had singled out the Meta CEO in an ongoing investigation that alleges the Biden administration and tech companies colluded to censor free speech online. He had also threatened Meta with contempt of Congress charges for ignoring a subpoena for documents. So, it was neither the act of courage nor conviction but the outcome of the legal consequences.
What was the response of the Biden administration? A simple statement claiming the position as ‘clear and consistent’- “We believe tech companies and other private actors should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present.” Democrats vouching and interfering for democracy, making statements for every development in other democracies in the name of human rights, minority status, and free speech, are shamelessly defending the position of hiding the information related to COVID-19, fact-checking in the name of content moderation and tax evasion by an influential dynastic business person. Don’t these acts of the company directly impact the Americans while they make their electoral choices?
Considering the reach and penetration of companies like Meta on global opinions and the functioning of democratic processes in other countries, the impact of these actions cannot be limited to the US. Facebook has been at the centre of controversy for its role in allowing the spread of misinformation and disinformation, particularly during political campaigns, as they did with certain content labelling as foreign interference (especially by Russia). What is the guarantee that Meta did not play a similar role in the elections of the United Kingdom or Bharat to discredit democracy? The Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which the political consulting firm had harvested data from millions of Facebook users without their consent and used it to influence voter behaviour in various elections, had a role to play in the 2016 US elections and the 2019 Bharatiya election (as a consultant to Congress party). Who has given the right to Facebook to shape electoral outcomes and manipulate public sentiments? Political advertisement is another controversial issue among tech giants. Despite claims of transparency, self-proclaimed ‘arbiters of truth’ and fact-checkers with such mega tech companies, including Google, have a clear political bias, as has been exposed multiple times. It’s time for us to demand transparency and hold these tech giants accountable.
The content moderation and fact-check façade over COVID-19 and various political agitations and protests, labelling something as ‘hate speech’ even without understanding the context, is another concerning point. Such mindless manipulations normalise the fake narratives of Islamophobia and pass on the actual hate slogans and songs saying Sar Tan Se Juda. How will we handle such ‘opinionated algorithms’ in the name of ‘content policy’ to save democracy and free speech? Does not this design of promoting emotionally charged posts favour sensationalism over facts and lead to political polarisation, which is detrimental to democracies?
Zuckerberg has repeatedly expressed concerns about potential Government regulation of Facebook and other tech companies, presenting himself as the proponent of democracy and free speech. He has also apologised multiple times for failing to protect user data, combating misinformation, and preventing foreign interference.
Meta is just a reference point here. The actual debate is over the hypocrisy of the ‘self-certified’ democrats, their monopolising and profit at any cost intent and lust for power to control the world. The arrest of Pavel Durov, a Russian-born tech magnate and founder of the platform Telegram by the French authorities, on the charges of not complying with the ‘laws of the local governments regarding restrictions’ is another case of reference. With nearly a billion users worldwide, Telegram is believed to be an essential messaging tool for political dissidents, battlefield generals, and gangsters, also promoting pornographic content. As a matter of principle, Telegram refuses to remove any message that violates local restrictions on expression or to disclose data about its users to any government. This extremist position on ‘free speech’ only promotes anarchy and pervasive behaviour and ultimately undermines democracy. How will we deal with these giant techs that are bigger in terms of membership and financial might than most of the individual nation-states?
What democracy is and who a democrat is have always been points of contention. Hitler also claimed himself to be a ‘democratic socialist’, and Stalinist and Maoist rules also justify them as ‘peoples Democracy’. The Western bloc led by the US usually claims a monopoly over certifying what is democratic and what is not. Earlier, European colonialists and now the USA define democratic values and decide whether any country has a democracy or not. The right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries is also retained. While doing so, what happens to the fundamental democratic principles within their internal systems and abroad hardly matters to the Western world. International institutions, diplomatic tools, and now digital technology are the means of manipulation to subvert democracy.
As Deendayal ji said, “Democracy has been defined as government by debate”, where each party ‘carefully listens to what the other has to say and has the desire to accept the truth in it’. In Bharatiya culture, debate is a means for the realisation of truth. He also warned that indiscipline and irresponsibility would be detrimental to democracy. The protests are being manufactured, lies are being served and violent ideologies are being justified by the same proclaimed ‘democrats’ (not necessarily members of the Democratic Party in the US) in the name of dissent. All this is also being tried in Bharat in the name of democracy. Bangladesh is a recent example where Islamists have been given a free hand just because a ‘favourable’ Government could not be installed through elections. All these tricks would ultimately undermine democratic values and democracy, as happened in most of the countries in West Asia. The Islamist and Chinese Communist ideologies would be the ultimate beneficiaries of the process. The tech giants claiming to be proponents of free speech think tanks and activists promoting protests based on identities in democratic countries (as they cannot do anything in a non-democratic country) and big powers representing the democratic bloc interfering in other democracies if the leadership is not favourable need to evaluate their thought process and amend the actions before it is too late for the genuine democratic world.
Comments