Taliban, U.S. far right find common ground,
Parties share ideology in condemnation of ‘free speech’ online
If there’s one good thing you can say about the Taliban, it’s that at least there’s no ambivalence about them. As they return to power in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of American troops this month, the theocratic militants’ record of needless violence, misogyny, archeological desecration and dogmatism speaks for itself. Whatever quite fair arguments one might make about the failures of British, Russian or American imperialism in the country, no one can argue the Taliban are better.
Still, surprisingly, as the group has swept to power with shocking swiftness in recent weeks, it has found at least a few supporters in what would have once been the most unlikely place: the American right.
In response to having Taliban content taken down from Facebook, a group spokesperson latched on to the Republican talking point that big tech firms are engaging in censorship.
It was ironic, and laughable. But shockingly, right-wing figures took to social media to agree, with Donald Trump Jr. tweeting that the Taliban’s assertion was “not wrong.” Meanwhile, controversial commentator Candace Owens stated on Twitter that the Taliban is “telling the truth here” and is “hitting at the totalitarianism of the U.S.”
This is the current state of things: far-right conservatives now side with the Islamofascists they once went to war against, all in the name of fighting big tech.
But for all the deserved eyerolling and condemnation, the whole episode has been unexpectedly revealing. Far from suggesting that content moderation on online platforms is a corruption of free speech, it instead points to the truth of the matter: that at least some of those who want unfettered free speech online are in fact fascists.
That is admittedly a discomfiting, perhaps even hyperbolicsounding statement. Free speech has been a core tenet of liberal democracies for centuries, and with good reason. When people are free from state intervention to say what they wish, they are also free to both push back against power — to criticize the government or any other facet of society.
That same freedom also allows for the interjection of new or once-taboo ideas. For example, to be able to critique white supremacy, heteronormativity or the gender binary have been vital in the advancement of human rights.
The question, though, is whether or not the emergence of online platforms like Facebook and Twitter has done something to that ideal.
For all the lofty rhetoric of the tech platforms about connecting the world, it’s hard to argue that the current online sphere is some sort of bastion of free speech. It is, rather, a cacophony of ideological cocooning, vitriol and misinformation.
Take the current pandemic. Far from a healthy, vigorous debate about, say, the efficacy of certain lockdown policies or the best way to vaccinate the world, we have instead been left with a recalcitrant portion of the population whose faith in medicine and science has been undermined by charlatans and fools.
Free speech in this instance isn’t free at all, but rather what scholar and writer Zeynep Tufecki calls democracy-poisoning. An avalanche of speech, most of which is “normal chatter” — i.e. lacks any particular authority and rigour — can have the perverse effect of chilling speech because it becomes futile to try and cut through the noise or make sense of a blaring public sphere.
When the Taliban thus decries the “censorship” of Facebook, what it is in truth saying is, “let us post our dogmatic ravings, too.” If anti-vaxxers, racists, conspiracy theorists and others can post to Facebook, then why can’t the Taliban also take to social media to spread their message that their niche sect of Islam is the one true faith, that unbelievers should suffer, and that women deserve far less than men?
Perhaps this is why the Taliban and the reactionary new right have found common ground: both parties wish to use social media to divide, propagate hatred, and assert things that simply aren’t true.
The kinds of strictures we as a society put on speech are incredibly sensitive, and should always err on the side of less rather than more. Free speech in the 20th-century sense of the term is still a vital social value and even hurtful and harmful ideas should still be debated.
But that maximalist model from the last century is also inadequate for the reality of online speech — primarily because the emphasis has shifted. While traditional “free speech” is about what one can or cannot say, 21st-century speech must focus on what ideas should or not be amplified on social media.
Disagree that there should be any regulation on speech? Fine, let’s debate that, too. But if you do, look to who’s joining your cause — not just the worst of American society, but the worst recent global history has to offer, too. If that isn’t a sign that something about “free speech” has changed, then nothing is.