Censorship has changed within the past few decades. What used to be government censoring citizens by blatantly not allowing them to see things has now turned into a much more stealthy approach. As I mentioned in class, I was recently shocked to realize that Google was actually tracking the links I had previously clicked on on different computers because I was signed into my Gmail account while searching. My initial reaction was to be creeped out, hate the Big Brother looking over my shoulder, and sign out of my Gmail account before ever searching for something again. But then I got to thinking. The fact that Google was able to tell me which links I had previously clicked on was really helpful. What if I had spent a while searching for something, finally found the information I was looking for, and then accidentally lost the link. At least I would be able to know which links I had clicked on, how many times I had clicked them, and when I clicked on them. What could be seen as censorship could also be seen as a really handy tool for research.
For at least a year after I applied to do Birthright in Israel, the ads on the side of my Facebook page all revolved around being Jewish, finding a Jewish boyfriend, or going to Israel. When I spent two weeks in Denmark, the ads on the side of my Facebook were in Danish for at least a month. And while I was also creeped out by this as well, I guess I would rather have the ads relate to things I am interested in than be about random topics.
It seems to me that old school censoring is more likely to be “bad” than the new forms of censoring. Not allowing kids to read Harry Potter in the classroom has limited benefits for those who are being censored other than limiting the information they are exposed to. The new type of censorship still continues to limit information, but it at least gives people something back in return. In this world where we are given so much information all at once it is often overwhelming and hard to sort through. So maybe if the news that comes up on my homepage is only the things I would be most interested in reading (even if it means that Big Brother knows what things I would be most interested in reading) it would actually be beneficial for me as the user.
We constantly think of censorship in a negative light and as the government denying its citizens the right to information. It is time that we redefine censorship and also think about whether it is always inherently bad.
Dani,
ReplyDeleteI ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOUR POST! Haha sorry I got excited when I was reading this because I was thinking the exact same thing. I think that many people are scared of any kind of censoring because it limits the information we can see. More importantly, it is limited by someone other than ourselves, which is why I believe that so many people have a negative view of censorship. However, I think the new form of censorship actually helps us. Like you mentioned, the fact that someone is looking over my shoulder and knows what I prefer is kind of creepy, but it is also very helpful. A lot of times I click on those ads on the side of my Facebook and I am interested by what the sites present me. This is information that I would not have gotten on my own if the ads were not there. The fact that someone knows my location and my personal preferences allows me to see ads for things that are around me, which is very useful.
There is no denying that censorship is viewed by many people as a negative thing. "Old" censorship was negative, but the "new" censorship is actually useful. We are still being limited in terms of the information being presented, but at we are in return receiving information that could be useful to us. I almost think of this new form of censorship as a filter, which is very useful since there is so much information available.
If there was ever a loaded word when it came to freedom and the web, it's "censorship". Like "surveillance" and "restriction" there are somethings that most everyone would consider negatives when it comes to the web. You bring up an interesting point with your evaluation of "censorship". However, I do not believe your example, relating to how Facebook filters ads based on interests and interactions, is actually an example of censorship.
ReplyDeleteWhen something is censored, it is repressed, eliminated, deleted or expunged. It is when you take something that is otherwise a whole, and only allow part of it to be interacted with due to perceived objectionable material. What Facebook is doing with its ads is not actually censorship. This does not mean, however, that Facebook (and Google and several other web companies) does not censor. With the recent introduction of algorithms that filter your feed to only show you the content posted by your most interacted with friends, Facebook has begun to filter, and by virtue of that fact, censor, the content that you end up viewing. Even if you still have access to all that data, the fact that some of it is made convenient to access, while some of it is hidden away off the main page is censorship.
What does this mean? Is it a positive or a negative for the web? That remains to be seen. In cases such as Facebook, this is most likely benign. It assists in only presenting the most relevant information to us, a great boon to our ever taxed attention spans. But this pattern of observing and filtering has, like everything does according to Morozov, a dark side. There are more ways to use profiling beyond tailoring ads, and there's not a lot stopping a person or government from abusing that fact.
Really interesting post Dani. I definitely agree with you that "censorship", however you define it, has changed a great deal since the days of government newspapers and radio static. Censorship is absolutely more nuanced and sophisticated these days. As Morozov mentions in his book, censoring was a very overt act last century. Oftentimes a blocked radio station or a banned book would leave with a sort of absence - something was taken, but without anything to replace it. Today, censorship is more oriented towards directing the discussion in safe directions than suppressing it entirely.
ReplyDeleteI think why you and others appreciate to some degree this new "censorship" is that it does provide a real service. With all of the information available to us online, we have no possible way to browse and digest all relevant or interesting information in any amount of time. To that end, I can certainly appreciate the value of software that uses preferences to filter news and media to best suit your interests - time is valuable, and in the information age, how you find useful information is less important than what you do with it.
Where I feel less comfortable is the idea of an organized entity censoring/filtering on my behalf, no matter the content. It is not a big jump from sorting content based on what is useful to sorting based on what is suitable. What I prefer is either filtering based on actively determined user preferences or crowd-sourced filtering a la Reddit. Such methods make censorship at least less subtle, if not entirely unsuccessful.
Censoring is worldwide, even here in the United States without millions of Americans even realizing what’s going on. If censoring is not a bad thing, wouldn’t that take away from the whole purpose of “Internet Freedom”? This is the reason why I considered reading your blog; I wanted to hear your feedback. Google is worldwide network that is used everywhere around the world, but it not used in the same way everywhere. During my class presentation of chapters one and two I mentioned Google censorship in China. Google was being hit with all types of different censorships from the Chinese government, and it was just bad investment for the network that had to consider leaving the country usage. Google is something that changed the world. It very advanced, and yes I was shocked also about the tracking of links by the network. It can be thought of as unnecessary and invading to anyone while looking for simple searches. When everyone, including you, uses the site pretty much every day, for any kind of information in life it can start to bother you. There a lot of people that turn to Google to find information on personal questions. So that private information is being stored by Google for future usage. It like these networks know who all of us are without us even knowing what going on inside these networks, and what be tracked and stored. I think the link tracking is being used by Google as a way to make money to keep the service running. If they see that you interested in a certain topic they will display ads that relate to make you click on them, so they can more money for the free service. Censoring exist on Google by collecting information about us, to use their free service.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe your final comment on redefining censorship is spot on. Especially in the U.S., there needs to be a discussion that explains what censorship means in this new age of ever increasing information. Many say that the increased use of censorship by the U.S. can be correlated to the exponentially increasing amount of information. However, data shows that the amount (measured in electronic data sizes now) of information being classified is growing faster than the amount of information being collected and created by the U.S. government. These figures are often used to argue that government transparency in the U.S. is becoming a thing of the past, due to increasing cyber threats and danger to information.
ReplyDeleteHowever, censorship becomes even more complex when it is indirect and I would say often unintentional. The goal of sites that search and organize information is to provide information that is relevant and useful. It is not their intention to censor and control your thoughts, at least in the U.S. I know Google has done a great job at guessing what I meant to say, even if my input is nowhere close to what I meant. Their business wouldn’t be effective if it didn’t serve the populations needs.
As for selective filtering, similar to Facebook’s methods, it’s almost necessary in this day of age. I would say it is worse to live in a world where information was not free and people were aware of it than live in a world where information was free, yet people chose to censor themselves. People do censor themselves. I remember asking in class how far do we go in a Google search before we are satisfied with the results. When do we use alternate search engines to find what we want? Especially in the U.S. we are known to give up things for convenience. I know it’s hard enough to convince my roommates to select pickup, rather than delivery, when ordering pizza.