More recently, we have seen the contentious completion of the takeover of TikTok in the US by Zionist billionaire Larry Ellison of Oracle, fresh off his family’s acquisition of major broadcaster CBS. — Reuters
INFORMATION today is all about “screens”; and today’s article is all about who controls what is on those screens.
In the early days, major digital media platforms were similar to the earlier days of mass media – somewhat neutral and ideologically agnostic.
Throughout history however, the rich and powerful have sought to control mass communication, and our present era is no different.
In the last few decades, the ability of high speed internet to transmit information (especially in video format) instantly all around the world marked a significant technological shift in terms of being able to transmit truth quickly and widely.
Today, the propagation of truth faces two major challenges: firstly, who controls the platforms through which information is being transmitted and consumed; and secondly, the ability of artificial intelligence to produce videos which are nearly indistinguishable from reality.
To understand the first challenge, we need only look at our smartphones.
Every single piece of information we consume through our smartphones and the internet (easily the single largest source of information for the vast majority of humans today) comes through one app, platform, filter or another – YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Xiaohongsu, Whatsapp, Telegram, Wechat, and so on.
In the beginning, there was some semblance of content-neutrality. These platforms looked to serve and profit off people of all ideological bents.
In keeping with the theme of recent columns that discussed how rapidly the world is changing, we are now quite knee deep in an era where such content-neutrality is no longer the norm.
This happened to global mainstream media some time ago. Where once cable news networks strove to show a semblance of neutrality and balance, news networks today display a naked ideological bent – firmly and freely.
It seems that internet platforms are going the same way.
The first major development in this vein was likely the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, which he then renamed X.
More recently, we have seen the contentious completion of the takeover of TikTok by Zionist billionaire Larry Ellison of Oracle, fresh off his family’s acquisition of major broadcaster CBS.
The Ellisons quickly installed rabid Zionist Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief at CBS, and there have already been early reports of pro-Palestinian, or anti-ICE content being censored on TikTok, along with the inability to use the word “Epstein” in private messages.
In the case of X and TikTok, a platform basically grew big enough to be eyed as a fat, juicy piece of meat to be devoured by the billionaire class, and turned into a personal plaything and tool to support their private agendas.
It is no coincidence either that both Musk and Ellison are supporters of American president Donald Trump.
What we need to be cognisant of now is just how much control the owners of these platforms have over the content that we consume.
Every app that we use to consume and transmit information are all, without exception, privately owned. They are subject to relatively few laws and regulations; and the ones that exist are there to serve the interests of their host nations, not ours.
American laws like Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act explicitly allow the American government to basically spy on foreign users of platforms like Whatsapp if it is deemed to be in American interests.
Platforms owned by other superpowers are likely subject to equal exposure.
Most of the platforms that we use on a daily basis are still fairly content-neutral; but it seems more and more plausible that someone can pretty much just flip a switch one day, and change all that in a blink of an eye – resulting in us thereafter only seeing what they want us to see.
Are we prepared for that time?
Given the madness that passes for international affairs today, European leaders have now also taken steps to mitigate these clear security risks.
The French government recently announced its intentions to stop using American based Zoom and Microsoft Teams in favour of a homegrown product called Visio, citing security risks.
As Ellison took control of TikTok, there was a mass exodus of users, many of whom opted to switch to a similar app called Upscrolled developed by a Palestinian based in Australia - causing Upscrolled to be one of the most highly downloaded apps in multiple countries over the last few weeks.
Earlier, an alternative to X was also launched successfully, called Bluesky.
It is encouraging that alternatives are being successfully developed. Hopefully, these alternatives institutionalise safeguards that will prevent the kinds of biases that led to their creation in the first place.
There is likely much more space for even more innovation when it comes to how we can build and (both technically and institutionally) structure digital platforms designed for mass use, to enshrine certain standards of neutrality and objectivity.
In general, the world is moving rapidly to concentrate more and more power in the hands of a few, at the expense of the many. Most of us will be able to recognise this truth simply by looking into our bank accounts.
This concentration of power and the one-sidedness it creates is not easy to resist. But it is not impossible, especially if we recognise the amount of leverage collective economic activism can have.
One example is when talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was forced off the air by Disney because of pressure from Trump.
When people started cancelling their Disney subscriptions en masse in protest, Disney eventually caved and restored Kimmel’s show.
On a very different scale, we see how the residents of Minneapolis in America are facing a violent and brutal siege at the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agents.
In addition to weeks of sustained protests, residents decided to go on a general strike, having a significant impact on the local economy. This was one of the factors that likely led to a change of tone from the White House.
Trump has had a year of erratic behaviour, from his Liberation Day tariffs to the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Had he gone further with plans to invade Greenland, he might have been staring at a global boycott of American goods.
In any case, this is a good time for us to watch how people are moving to apps that are not based in America such as Telegram, Upscrolled, and Visio. We may not be at the inflection point that leads to a mass exodus quite yet, but it is in no way too early to start looking at alternatives and exit plans – and to the idea of building ones that may not exist yet.
Nathaniel Tan did his degree in Peace and Conflict Studies, and is a strategic communications consultant. He can be reached at n@post.harvard.edu. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.
