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