Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, April 2, 2019
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
S
ocial media has evolved
drastically
during
my
lifetime. Since
originating with the
social
networking
platform Six Degrees
in 1997, a primitive
Myspace, it has grown
in both influence and
dynamism.
After
solidifying its roots
with the recognizable
Facebook in 2004, the
following
iterations
of Twitter, Instagram
and Snapchat pushed boundaries
in social media’s format and style.
In middle school, I experienced
the popularization of influencers:
teams of disciplined curators
whose
accounts
wield
the
attention of millions and inform
their concepts of language, dress,
memes, social behaviors, politics
and more. These influencers
brought about an age of editing
and analyzing on the photo-
sharing service Instagram, and
further linked the platform to
commercial
agendas
through
advertising. In 2016, we witnessed
social media play an influential
role in presidential elections
with Twitter, the microblogging
service practically monopolizing
the global political discourse
between pundits, commenters,
candidates
and
everyday
Americans.
Social
media
is
often
criticized for its edited and
filtered representations of people’s
lives. These “highlight reels”
are designed to technologically
monetize users’ egos with a
currency
of
validation.
The
Guardian’s article “Logged off:
meet the teens who refuse to use
social media” explores a Gen-Z
backlash to the social pressures
of
Instagram
and
Facebook,
while Psychology Today’s article
“Does Using Social Media Make
You Lonely?” and The New
York Times’ piece “In Search of
Lost Screen Time” examine the
symptomatic issues.
What social media platforms
are criticized for less frequently
is the control they exercise over
our interactions in worldwide
discourse and their misuse of
our personal information. These
platforms have a responsibility
to try to connect people from all
around the world. The owners
and moderators of these platforms
must be held accountable for
censorship and the control and
backdoor trading of our personal
data – if social media is to remain
a force for good .
It is estimated that today
nearly one-third of the planet
uses social media platforms to
connect beyond languages to
dissimilar parts of the world.
Social media, in this sense, serves
as a spyglass that illuminates
different ways of doing things.
This technology is impacting lives
more than previously imagined
possible, and some have begun
to investigate what these social
media platforms are doing with
this new responsibility.
Twitter has recently come
under fire for the process with
which it arbitrates the banning
of tweets. Some say it is an issue
of political bias. Others find fault
with the fact that these decisions
to censor the free expressions of
others in a global arena are made
not by elected officials in our
government, but by a corporation,
and more specifically, by an
unelected,
often
politically
biased individual employee. In
an interview with CNN’s Brian
Stelter, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey
stated, “I think we need to
constantly show that we are not
adding our own bias, which I fully
admit is left, is more
left-leaning.” That said,
Dorsey also admitted
Twitter is so liberal
that
conservative
employees “don’t feel
safe to express their
opinions.” Recently, on
the podcast “The Joe
Rogan
Experience,”
independent journalist
Tim Pool squared off
against Dorsey and
Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s global lead
for legal, policy and trust and safety,
on issues of alleged censorship
and lack of transparency. One of
Pool’s recurring questions was
why the platform was treating
users differently for their political
leanings.
When
Dorsey
and
Gadde assured they only manage
behaviors on their platform and not
opinions, Pool gave evidence of the
contrary.
Pool offered as evidence the
overwhelming number of Twitter
suspensions
for
right-leaning
users combined with the lack
of punishments for users on the
political left. Pool listed numerous
renowned commenters on the right
spectrum like Milo Yiannopoulos,
Gavin McInnes and Alex Jones
who have been banned completely
from the platform for their tweet
content that was either deemed
“hate speech” or “didn’t conform
to Twitter standards.” Pool then
contrasted
this
with
several
shocking posts by left-leaning
participants that went unpunished.
Antifa, a militant opposition to
fascism and other forms of extreme
right-wing
ideology,
published
tweets with a “list of 1,600 ICE
employees
alongside
photos,
locations, and job titles,” some of
which have still yet to be deleted
at the time of this podcast despite
their qualification as doxxing.
Comedian and actress Kathy
Griffin first posed in a photograph
holding a mockup of President
Donald Trump’s severed head
and more recently called for the
doxxing of the Covington High
School students, saying, “Name
these kids. I want NAMES.
Shame them.” Griffin suffered
no punishment or suspension
because of her actions. Pool
also cited a Twitter user that
tweeted three times calling for
the killing of the Covington High
School students and again faced
no suspension or ban. Users
proposing the beheading of the
president or the burning alive of
children suffered no sanctions,
while those who promoted certain
right-leaning positions, such as
refusing to refer to transgender
users by their correct pronouns,
were routinely suspended. Pool
asked Dorsey, “Why does it always
feel like your policies are going one
direction politically? Twitter is
slowly gaining… too much control
from your personal ideology based
on what you’ve researched, what
you think is right, over American
discourse.”
Pool argues that Twitter’s
rule controlling how users refer
to transgender people with risk of
suspension is evidence of Twitter
using ideologically driven policies.
Even if you agree with the rule,
you might be able to see that it
necessarily takes a stance on the
issue of free speech, a stance
that many conservative users
of the platform disagree with.
But where are the roots of this
control? Pool argues that, because
Twitter doesn’t follow the United
States’ legal behaviors toward
free speech and instead opts for
a Constitutionally unrecognized
hate speech regulation to curb
harassment, it often comes down
to an individual Twitter employee
sitting at a screen and deciding
if a post is allowed or not. This
seems arbitrary, considering the
conscious and unconscious bias
from Twitter staff and other
Silicon Valley personnel that might
unfairly tilt the dialogue in one
direction. U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes,
R-Calif., recently sued Twitter
for $250 million for their alleged
“shadow banning” of conservative
users, as well as an alleged personal
smear campaign. Again, politics
aside, it’s important to note the
control these platforms have over
the expressions of free-thinking
users.
Similar to Twitter’s issue of
political
censorship,
Facebook
has recently faced criticism for
the inappropriate handling of its
users’ personal information, with
Zuckerberg
testifying
before
Congress on the subject of data
privacy. In December of last year,
The New York Times reported
that Facebook has been giving
users’ personal data to tech giants
like Amazon, Netflix, Spotify and
Microsoft. Netflix and Spotify,
video-on-demand
and
music
giants respectively, were given
access to read Facebook users’
private messages, while tech
giants Microsoft and Amazon
were given lists of Facebook users’
friends and contact information.
While Zuckerberg was quick
to
argue
that
all
Facebook
users agree to a “Terms of Use”
allowing such sale of personal
and private information, these
agreements imply compensation
and verge on the Orwellian.
Netflix and Spotify now
have the ability to strip-mine all
kinds of personal information
from Facebook users’ private
conversations, such as your plans
to move to a new neighborhood,
your salary, the status of your
relationship with your spouse
and even your best-kept secrets.
It’s then up to the individual to
trust a global corporation with
the proper application of his or
her highly sensitive information.
The Wall Street Journal’s article
“Can a Facebook Post Make
Your Insurance Cost More?”
examines a potential future
where posting pictures of a
rock-climbing jaunt or alcoholic
indulgence could impact your
life-insurance premiums. These
stories
perfectly
articulate
the risk and burden that these
platforms place on its users
by collecting their personal
information.
Privacy and free expression
on the internet are on the
line because of the actions of
Facebook and Twitter. They
don’t need to go much further
to blur the freedoms of everyday
Americans. Next time you log
on to Twitter or Facebook, ask
yourself,
“What
information
about myself am I giving up by
participating here and what will
they allow me to say?”
Miles Stephenson can be reached at
mvsteph@umich.edu.
O
n Friday, March 15
some 3,000 students
from
the
University
of
Michigan and high
schools in the Ann
Arbor area gathered
on the Diag as a
part of the Global
Climate Strike. The
strike was inspired
by Swedish teenager
Greta
Thunberg,
now nominated for
a Nobel Peace Prize,
and was a coordinated effort
by students internationally to
walk out of classes and demand
action on climate change.
In Ann Arbor, the rally was
followed by a march around
campus, with its final stop at
the Fleming Administration
Building
where
protesters
sat
for
a
peaceful
sit-in.
Organizers of the strike had a
list of demands for University
President
Mark
Schlissel,
but
understood
he
would
be
unable
to
immediately
commit to a blanket list of
demands.
The
protesters’
primary goal was to create
a dialogue with Schlissel,
where he would agree to a
public meeting in order to
discuss the University’s role
in combating climate change
openly. The sit-in lasted seven
and a half hours. However, it
did not go according to plan.
Instead of talking with
the students or agreeing to
a public meeting at a later
date,
administrators,
and
eventually
police,
asked
students
to
leave.
When
they refused to move and
demanded their voices be
heard, administrators called
the police and 10 students
were arrested for trespassing,
including two minors from
local high schools.
The
handling
of
these
peaceful
protesters
highlights
the
consistent
lack
of
transparency
and
accountability
from
the
administration
on
its
commitment
to
acting
on
climate change.
The turnout of the strike
shows how important this
issue is to the local community
and
students
and
the
subsequent sit-in emphasizes
the
commitment
students
at
our
university
have
to climate justice.
Back in November,
many students and
faculty
applauded
Schlissel
as
he
announced
he
would put together
a
commission
on
carbon
neutrality.
Today,
we
are
simply
asking
he
make
the
process
transparent
and commit to serious and
effective deadlines.
I reached out to participants
in the strike and peaceful
protests for comments on how
they view the situation. LSA
senior Olivia Perfetti, one of the
10 students arrested following
the sit-in, is the policy chair
for 2018-19 for Students for
Clean Energy, a cosponsor of
the Washtenaw Climate Strike.
In an email interview with
The Daily, Perfetti commented
what went through her mind
when she heard the University
call the police.
“I want to emphasize how
reasonable our request was: a
one-hour public meeting with
President Schlissel moderated
by a student. This meeting was
necessary
because
previous
meetings have all taken place
behind closed doors, been off
the record, had moderators
who
filtered
questions
or
excluded discussion about the
Central Power Plant (CPP)
expansion
and
divestment
from fossil fuels. We agreed to
leave on this condition and felt
sure that our request would
be granted because it was so
straightforward.”
She
continued:
“What
possible reason could President
Schlissel have for refusing? I
personally was certain that he
would agree rather than have
so many young people arrested.
Clearly, I was wrong. I probably
should
have
been
nervous
when the arrests started.”
Perfetti continued, outlining
how she ended up feeling
calm: “First, being with other
organizers gave me a strong
sense of solidarity: This is the
power of collective action. And
second, the unreasonableness
of President Schlissel’s refusal
strengthened my conviction
to stay. I had no doubt that we
were in the right, so I had no
trouble standing my ground.”
Naina
Agrawal-Hardin,
a
16-year-old
student
at
Washtenaw
International
High
School,
was
a
lead
organizer for the Washtenaw
County Climate Strike and
speaker at the event. She said
in an interview that due to
travel plans, she was unable
to attend the sit-in, but kept
in
constant
communication
with the participants. “When
we found out that police were
being called, I was amazed
at how calm everyone stayed.
It portrayed how much they
were willing to sacrifice for
this cause. I know people were
scared, but to me, from the
outside, it almost seemed like
their
resolve
strengthened,
and it was clear that they
weren’t going to give up.”
The events of March 15
should be a wake-up call
to everyone sitting on the
sidelines
about
climate
action. Students like Perfetti
and Agrawal-Hardin are an
inspiration to the rest of us to
stand up for what we believe
and not to compromise on what
is right.
The
University’s
decision to avoid and deflect
accountability is a travesty
and it needs to do a better
job
communicating
with
students. It is unacceptable
that Schlissel continues on
without any direct interaction
with
stakeholders
in
the
community.
The
University
claims it is committed to
fighting climate change and
going
carbon
neutral,
yet
refuses to set clearly defined
and easily measurable goals for
this endeavor. But this cannot
be the case forever. The people
have spoken, and the time
to act decisively on climate
change is now.
Social media’s oversized issues
MILES STEPHENSON | COLUMN
‘U’ severely lacks transparency and accoutability on climate action
TIMOTHY SPURLIN | COLUMN
DANA PIERANGELI | COLUMN
New Zealand could teach us a thing or two
N
ew Zealand’s largest
mass
shooting
took
place at two mosques,
the Al Noor Mosque and the
Linwood Islamic Center, in
Christchurch, killing 50 people
and injuring another 50 on the
Muslim holy day, Friday, March
15. Before the shooting took
place, the suspect released a
document detailing far-right,
nationalistic views targeting
Muslims and immigrants.
After this gruesome event,
Jacinda
Ardern,
the
prime
minister
of
New
Zealand,
immediately sprang into action.
She banned all military-style
semi-automatic
guns
and
assault rifles and has created
a government buyback system
to get rid of those already in
circulation, which will cost
the
government
between
$100 and $200 million in New
Zealand dollars. Though the
total number of banned guns
is unknown, of the 1.5 million
guns in circulation, more than
13,500 are now banned. Owners
are expected to turn those guns
in and will be reimbursed. If
they do not comply, they could
receive up to three years in
prison. And this is just the first
step.
Most citizens are in complete
agreement about the necessity
for this action, including gun
owners. John Overand told
NPR the new gun laws are a
“good idea.” He went on: “I’m
a farmer and I’ve got guns, but
just for pests and things like
that. But semi-automatics aren’t
what you use for shooting pests,
they’re for killing people.”
Even
those
in
the
gun
industry are taking action. Some
gun sellers took all weapons off
the shelf the day of attack and
stopped selling high capacity
magazines. A manager of a rifle
range shut down his gun club to
show respect for the victims.
People all around the world
are praising New Zealand’s quick
and effective action. Rebecca
Peters, an activist who lead
gun law reforms in Australia
in the 1990s, said: “It’s been
the fastest response ever by a
government after a tragedy.”
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez, D-N.Y., tweeted: “This
is what leadership looks like,”
reminding others that Sandy
Hook took place six years ago
and the United States still does
not have universal background
checks.
U.S.
Sen.
Bernie
Sanders, I-Vt., challenged the
U.S. to follow in New Zealand’s
footsteps, saying, “This is what
real action to stop gun violence
looks like.”
And yet, little change has
been enacted here in the United
States, where gun violence has
been a much more widespread
issue. The U.S. has experienced
162 mass shootings since 1966,
according to The Washington
Post.
They’ve
taken
place
everywhere from schools to
movie theaters, killing everyone
from children to the elderly.
Afterward,
the
nation
is
outraged for a couple months,
sometimes a little longer. We
cry for change but are ignored.
Soon the cries begin to die out
due to inaction. Then the cycle
is repeated over and over again.
Thankfully, we’ve recently
been granted a ban on bump
stocks, and the Supreme Court
seems set on keeping that ban
in place, rejecting the second
bid to end the ban in three
days. This action is a step in
the right direction, but it’s not
enough. We don’t have national
bans on assault weapons, only
restrictions in a few states. We
don’t have universal background
checks. We don’t have enough
forms of protection against
what is supposed to protect us.
New Zealand is not burdened
by
the
Second
Amendment
like the United States. In New
Zealand,
owning
a
gun
is
considered “a privilege and not
a right,” as Stuart Nash, New
Zealand police minister, said.
They also don’t have to deal
with a powerful National Rifle
Association pushing back on any
safety initiatives. Dana Loesch,
a spokeswoman for the NRA,
wrote on Twitter, “The US isn’t
NZ. While they do not have an
inalienable right to bear arms
and to self-defense, we do.”
While this is a true statement,
it does not give us the excuse to
be irresponsible with our rights.
Maybe it’s not possible to take as
dramatic forms of action as New
Zealand did, or to pass it as fast,
but that doesn’t give the U.S. an
excuse to do nothing.
When a national tragedy
occurs,
a
government
is
supposed to take action. A
government is supposed to take
care of its citizens, not allow
its citizens to be slaughtered
time and time again while it
stands idly by. A government is
supposed to act. That is exactly
what New Zealand did and why
they are being praised for their
actions by others who recognize
its
importance.
They
have
responded to tragedy with quick
and effective action – and we
should do the same.
How many more? How many
more shootings will it take for
the U.S. to wake up and take
action? One hundred and sixty-
three? Two hundred? Because
we know what New Zealand’s
answer is. Zero.
Dana Pierangeli can be reached at
dmpier@umich.edu.
Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White
Ashley Zhang
Timothy Spurlin can be reached at
timrspur@umich.edu.
When a national
tragedy occurs,
a government is
supposed to take
action
MILES
STEPHENSON
These platforms
have a responsibility
to try to connect
people from all
around the world
TIMOTHY
SPURLIN