Well, I’m not a big YouTube user – to my shame I have never
actually uploaded any video content – but I did miss it while it was
unavailable. It had happened once before, some years ago, and a younger, more
technologically savvy colleague gave me directions to a site that was able to
bypass the blockage. As one might have expected, the government was on to that
this time around, so the bypass no longer worked. Still, I’m guessing the younger
generation in Turkey weren’t unduly disturbed by the ban, except as a matter of
democratic principle.
Anyway, I’m delighted to see YouTube up and running again. It’s a marvellous
resource, and a further indication of how the Internet and social media have
changed our lives in ways that we could scarcely have imagined in that distant
20th century.
The blocking of YouTube (and, I understand, Twitter,
though to my greater shame, I haven’t got into that at all) did, however, get
me thinking about larger issues to do with social media, the Internet and
the big question of censorship.
Much was made in Western news media
of the role played by social media in events collectively referred to as The
Arab Spring that began in Tunisia in December 2010 and spread rapidly to Egypt,
Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen and other Islamic states. The anarchy of the
Internet was credited with empowering a switched-on younger generation to
achieve greater political awareness and organize themselves in numbers
sufficient to overthrow despotic regimes.
Sad to say, a return to military
rule in Egypt and the disastrous ongoing civil war in Syria have taken the
gloss somewhat off that brave new vernal world of ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ –
and as for ‘brotherhood’, that seems to have become a dirty word rendering
further analysis unnecessary. Those much-vaunted social media, it seems, have
their limitations when it comes to producing meaningful long-term political
change.
Nevertheless, it’s disturbing when governments use their powers to
censor our activities. We have come to depend on the Internet and social media
so much in our daily lives that it’s hard to imagine a time when people lived in
relative contentment without them. It was natural for people in Turkey to feel
angry when their government blocked access to YouTube and Twitter. Some
are also complaining that the same government is taking measures to control the
sale and consumption of alcohol in public places, and to limit the display of
naked female flesh on roadside advertising.
Now I have to tell you, I have mixed feelings about these issues. I
confess I enjoy the occasional tipple of fermented and even spirituous liquors
for relaxation and social purposes. I can appreciate the sight of a well-turned
ankle as much as the next red-blooded male. On the other hand, I am well aware
that my own homeland, New Zealand, and our near neighbor, Australia, not
renowned either of them for alcoholic moderation, impose quite tight
restrictions on the sale and consumption of such beverages. As an example, in
Melbourne a couple of years ago, I went to Federation Square with my daughter
and her partner to watch Australian Open tennis on the giant screen. One would
expect a typical Aussie to enjoy a frosty VB or Fosters on such an occasion –
but eagle-eyed private security boys were circulating to ensure that they did
not.
I can also say that, despite the importance given to eye-catching
advertising in subways and other public places in Auckland, Sydney, London and
New York, I don’t recall seeing large-size posters of fetching young lasses
clad in skimpy underwear or bikinis, of the kind that are commonplace on the
streets of Istanbul. Not sure if there’s a law against it – it just doesn’t
seem to be the done thing.
Which brings me to the question of censorship – and I have to tell you,
I’m against it, as a matter of principle, as, I suspect, are most modern,
broad-minded, right-thinking adults in Western societies. At the same time, I
can understand why some people feel there should be some control over the
dissemination of child pornography, and material depicting actual physical
abuse. I have some sympathy for the argument that says children under a certain
age should not be exposed to visual material deemed to be ‘adult’ in nature. Google and YouTube actually include such restrictions as part of company
policy.
So we have a paradoxical situation here: a conflict between theory and
practice which is not easy to resolve. If we accept that some measure of censorship
is socially desirable, the question shifts to one of where we will draw the
line – and who will have authority to draw it. Again, few of us have confidence
in the willingness of private enterprise to regulate its own activities, so in
the end, most of us would reluctantly accept that governments have a necessary
role to play.
But now, of course, we have given a dangerous power to politicians who,
as we suspect, are not always driven by an altruistic concern for the welfare
of their people. In the end, those of us fortunate enough to live in
democracies have the power of the ballot box where we can call elected
governments to account. Between elections, we have the responsibility of
participating in the democratic process by joining pressure groups, working for
social change though NGOs, even taking to the streets in protest.
I have written elsewhere on the complex
nature of democracy. Most writers on the subject agree that there is a
continuum from one extreme of absolute slavery to the other of absolute
individual freedom – and most countries lie somewhere on the line between. In
fact there may even be several components of democracy, such as press freedom,
representative electoral systems, separation of church and state, limitations
on corporate power, for example, and countries may be ahead in some while
lagging behind in others.
The United States and Europe, for example, place, as far as I am aware,
no restrictions on the use of social media such as Twitter and YouTube, and
some of their political leaders have been outspoken in their criticism of the
Turkish Government for doing so.
On the other hand, they seem to see no contradiction between their position
on this matter, and what some might see as a greater danger – their willingness
to persecute individuals who use the power of the Internet to question the
activities of governments and corporations. I’m thinking here of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange –
still, as far as I know, holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London,
threatened with deportation if he emerges; Edward Snowden, epic whistleblower
stripped of his US passport and similarly unable to leave Russia; Bradley (now
Chelsea) Manning, sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking information many
of us think we had a right, even a need, to know. I wouldn’t put New Zealand’s
very own Kim Dotcom in the same league as those guys, but nevertheless, I
appreciate the light he is shining on the shenanigans of politicians downunder.
What is important, in my opinion, is the responsibility we all have to
speak out against corruption and injustice wherever we see it, although doing
so will not necessarily win us friends and public acclaim. Our voice of
protest, however, will possess greater credibility if we nail our colours to
the mast, rather than maintain a safe electronic distance via social media on
the Internet. For me, the greatest figures of history are those who were
willing to sacrifice personal comfort, even life itself, to achieve a greater
social goal:
|
Not everyone will thank you for wanting to change the world |
Mahatma Gandhi in India, whose 32-year struggle brought no personal
wealth, ending in his own assassination – but resulted in independence for his
people.
Jesus of Nazareth, who challenged the establishment of his time in
unacceptable ways, knowing that they would kill him for it in a most unpleasant
way.
Even Turkey’s own Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Despite widespread public
adulation, he assuredly faced opposition from vested interests in his own
lifetime – and denied himself the important Turkish dreams of family and
dynastic succession for the greater goal of building a nation.
And to be fair, that’s why I don’t rank Mr ‘Megaupload’ Dotcom with that other triumvirate of Internet heroes.
I’m not convinced there is quite the same spirit of self-sacrifice underlying
his actions.
Well, YouTube is back, and I’m
happy. I would, however, make a plea to armchair political activists wishing to
bring down the Turkish Government. By all means express your views, but at the
same time show a little consideration for your fellow citizens who enjoy using Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for
less controversial purposes.