How Twitter is attempting to shape the Democratic primary
How Twitter is attempting to shape the Democratic primary
By Nomiki Konst, contributor March 09, 2016, 02:00 pm
In 2010, when the countries of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya
shut down the Internet during their revolutions, democracies around the globe
publicly condemned their governments. Today, as North Korea, China and Iran
continue to block access to Twitter and Facebook, our government has labeled
their actions as human rights violations. The modern world has come to rely on
the Internet and the free press as a democratic tool, giving citizens a
position in public discourse. The value of these social media tools is so vast
that the U.N. has condemned states that deny the Internet — regardless of
reason — through its International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
So it should be a shock to Americans that recently in our
own country, a grassroots hashtag being used to debate the stances of one of
our presidential candidates was shut down. But it was not shut down by the U.S.
government, but rather by Twitter itself. The same Twitter that lobbied for net
neutrality and to keep Twitter alive around the world. And now that same
Twitter has promoted #SaySomethingGoodAboutTwitter, to counter the criticism it
faced for censoring its utility last week.
Twitter has become the front line of the debate over free
speech. Should the company ban hateful speech? Bigotry? Sexism? Should it shut
down or just monitor the accounts of terrorists and drug lords? Against much
public pressure, Twitter has chosen a liberal stance and trusted its community
to draw the line on acceptable behaviors.
So why this sudden reversal? Why would Twitter shut down
a grassroots hashtag that was leading a discussion regarding a Democratic
primary? The answer lies in that old saying, "follow the money."
Three days after Omid Kordestani, the executive chairman
of Twitter, hosted a maxed-out fundraiser for Democratic candidate Hillary
Clinton, a Black Lives Matter activist's notable protest at another fundraiser
inspired #WhichHillary — to open debate about Clinton's often conflicting
record on issues. #WhichHillary exploded within hours of the protest and rose
to the No. 1 trending topic on Twitter. Clinton, who canceled several financial
industry fundraisers recently (most likely to prevent a Wall Street optics
dilemma) has lately been relying on donations from the liberal-leaning tech
community.
All this occurred within days of the South Carolina
primary. As South Carolina voters were making up their minds, this massive
campaign challenging Clinton's history with the African-American community
became the No. 1 most discussed topic on Twitter. Yet it came to a sudden halt
and was pushed off the trending topics list as its momentum kept building. (And
the hashtag's creator's account was even suspended.)
As a country that prides itself in being the leader of
democratic values, assisting democracies through State Department-funded
programs in areas like the free press, election monitoring and party
assistance, perhaps it's time for us to take a moment to assess the state of
our own democracy?
Do we have the same democratic process that we are
championing around the world? If the 2000 election debacle wasn't a shock, and
if the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision didn't send your
head spinning, and the gerrymandering process hasn't made you question our
system, then maybe you trusted the free and open Internet to be the corner of
our democracy where citizens could still have a voice. Now, even that safe
space is being invaded.
Politicians and power brokers will always seek new ways
to win — from giving local party leaders' control over voter files and caucus
monitoring, to the outdated idea of super-delegates preventing
non-establishment candidates from winning the nomination, to candidates being
chosen by their fundraising skills rather than their ideas and support. Winning
elections is important. But at what cost?
And at what point do we go from being the global leader
of democratic elections to the example of a system that cannot withstand
corruption?
These are the debates our founders encouraged us to
discuss, notably through each generational revolution. The press has always
been controlled by interests, and power brokers have always found shortcuts to
winning — but throughout history, as the public has recognized the consequences
of these actions, they've pressured government for reform. Is it time for
government oversight of Twitter and Facebook, public entities controlled by
executives and investors? Should they be considered public utilities? Should
the Federal Election Commission crack down on parties that design election
rules and landscapes in favor of establishment picks?
As this election continues, we citizens should be asking
these questions and letting our leaders know that we recognize that the process
needs drastic and immediate reform. Just as #WhichHillary was shut down, a new
hashtag immediately popped up: #WhichHillaryCensored (which was later shut
down, as well), while Twitter continues its damage control by promoting #SaySomethingGoodAboutTwitter.
But in America, citizens always find a way to be heard. And now more than ever,
Americans have new vehicles to challenge the status quo. So, let's start a new
hashtag: #CorruptTwitter.
Konst is a political analyst and communications
strategist regularly appearing on national media outlets discussing politics.
Comments
Post a Comment