Eric Schmidt's desire to bring a 'spell-check for hate' to the web is virtual fascism

In a thought-piece for the New York Times, Google's Eric Schmidt proposes a way to "build a better web". The catalyst for his re-envisioning of web is -- predictably -- terrorism generally, and IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh specifically. His proposal for tackling are, frankly, little short of deluded.

On the one hand he decries "authoritarian governments" for employing censorship, and then in the next breath calls for the likes of Islamic State to be targeted so their videos can be removed. The problem is -- well, there are several really -- that this is somewhat fascistic. And that’s before we start to question whether Schmidt understands the meaning of the word 'hypocrite'.

Schmidt shoots himself in the foot when trying to explain his thinking, immediately unravelling any argument he may have had. His article reads almost like Mein Kampf: "it's important that we use connectivity to promote the values that bring out the best in people". No, Eric. What's important is that people are free to use this connectivity as they want, not to have values imposed on them through it.

He goes on to fret that if left unmanaged by citizens, government, and tech companies, "the internet could become a vehicle for further disaggregation of poorly built societies, and the empowerment of the wrong people, and the wrong voices". Just who is it that decide who are the 'wrong people' with the 'wrong voices' in your New World Order, eh, Eric?

He witters on and on, seemingly oblivious to the irony the echoes through saying "authoritarian governments tell their citizens that censorship is necessary for stability. It's our responsibility to demonstrate that stability and free expression go hand in hand", and then immediately follow it up with "we should target social accounts for terrorist groups like Islamic State, and remove videos before they spread, or help those countering terrorist messages to find their voice". So censorship is bad, unless you're censoring views that oppose yours, right, Eric?

Schmidt does not put forward any new or compelling arguments to support his ideas. It's a well-worn path that has been trodden endlessly:

As with all great advances in technology, expanded Web access has also brought with it some serious challenges, like threats to free speech, qualms about surveillance and fears of online terrorist activity. For all the good people can do with new tools and new inventions, there will always be someone who will seek to do harm. Ever since there's been fire, there's been arson.

The analogy Schmidt tries to draw here is interesting in that it actually runs counter to what he proposes for the web. Indeed, arson has existed for (just about) as long as fire (it's unlikely, however, that the first discovers used it as a weapon of wilful destruction of property). But just has no effective method of countering arson has ever been determined, attempts to prevent the use of the web for evil are doomed to failure. Punishments may act as deterrents, but they will never eliminate a crime. Never.

Schmidt's choice of words is also quite telling: "for all the good people can do". Concepts of good and bad are just that. Concepts. It's almost too easy to single out the likes of ISIS as bastions of evil, illustrating why 'something needs to be done'. But 'good' and 'bad' are often highly subjective. In suggesting that some views and opinions are worthy of -- nay, deserve -- silencing, is extremely worrying. The web is a tool for everyone, not just those who hold the same views and ideologies as oneself, or even the majority.

Setting up a system -- be it automated or manual -- by which objectionable content can be killed would set an extremely dangerous precedent. The aim of such a system might be a stop the spread of 'dangerous' propaganda, but choosing who is able to say what, when, and how is a force of propaganda in itself: propaganda by elimination. Silence your opponents, and there is only your voice left to be heard.

The proposal is to develop "spell-checkers for hate and harassment", but what on Earth does this actually mean? Let Schmidt enlighten you:

Intuition, compassion, creativity -- these are the tools that we will use to combat terror and violence online, to drown out the hate with a broadly shared humanity that only the web makes possible. It's up to us to make sure that when the young girl reading this in Indonesia on her tablet moves from this page, the web that awaits her is a safe and vibrant place, free from coercion and conformity.

Unless, of course, that coercion is executed by 'good' governments with a view to encouraging people to conform to a nice, Western philosophy. That's just fine by Schmidt. I've already argued that ISIS and terror attacks should not be used as scapegoats for placing restrictions on the internet, but that is exactly what people are trying to do. It's fascism and authoritarianism wrapped up in attractive packaging.

Not in my name, Eric.

Photo credit: Frederic Legrand - COMEO / Shutterstock