Can Instagram Make the Internet Nicer? Should it Try?

© San Pedro Sun

Last night I watched a segment on CBS's On Assignment program about how the CEO of Instagram is experimenting with the elimination of negative comments on user posts. Some critics say this is the first step down a slippery slope of censorship. Are they right? Can we collectively agree on any limitations of "free speech?"

The current target of the Instagram clean-up campaign seems to be online bullying, not quashing dissent, or opinions on the issues of our time. I find it hard to argue anyone, or any company, in the communications industry, who wants to stop enabling the abuse of the First Amendment as it applies to personal attacks. To my untrained information technology eye, it would appear easy to craft code that blocks a person's name, plus derogatory, libelous, defamatory, and hateful words, from making it online in social media. Does this stop the hate itself? Of course not, but again, social media is currently enabling those who intend to inflict emotional terror on others.

You argue that it should not be the responsibility of a media enterprise to edit and police its users. It is up to the victims of abuse to fight back. How, exactly? What if it is not in your nature to retaliate? How do you know that fighting verbal fire with fire will not escalate into physical abuse? I would argue that any tools available to diminish personal attacks on others should be deployed in the interest of a calmer public. We need more compassion, and if it has to be "imposed" through careful regulation, then so be it. Yes, those bent on abusing others will invent new slang epithets to get around the code, but right now there is no work (or thought) involved in berating another person online.

Words and ideas that have no other intention than to do harm to another party, be it a gender identity, race, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or place of origin, or those with disabilities, or whatever, have no place in our social conversations. Period.

What comes next? Won't certain organizations and their public figure spokespersons be muted online and elsewhere? Will they no longer have a platform to speak from, or places to convene? Unlikely, but public pressure is growing, and the will of the People must be respected. Consensus is building and it appears that tolerance for a rhetoric of hate is diminishing rapidly.

Here in Colorado Springs, it has come to the attention of residents that the Cheyenne Mountain Resort will host a conference for VDare, a White nationalist and anti-immigrant group. The conference is still scheduled for April, 2018, but the resort is taking a beating on Facebook, Tripadvisor, and Yelp. It will be interesting to see whether the VDare conference will need to look for a new location.

Right now we at are a collective low point of name-calling, inflammatory speech, and violent protest and counter-counter protest as the recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia blatantly demonstrated. This cannot be classified as "free speech," certainly not as our forefathers intended it, and arguably not by any measure. Words and ideas that have no other intention than to do harm to another party, be it a gender identity, race, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or place of origin, or those with disabilities, or whatever, have no place in our social conversations. Period. Personally, I find it distasteful even coming from a stand-up comic.

When your goal, through your words and actions, is to deny civil rights to another class of human beings, then you are forfeiting your own right to free speech and, by extension, all the rights you are seeking to deprive others of.

I would not have expected Instagram to be a leader in a social revolution trending toward a more loving, or at least hospitable, online dialogue. After all, it is a huge financial gamble for a company to make such policy changes, at the risk of alienating a large segment of its users, as well as its shareholders. It remains to be seen whether a backlash will cause the company to retreat toward the status quo. Still, I applaud them for doing something to protect the most vulnerable among us. Meanwhile, we should each take up our own proverbial sword and shield and love gun, and start leading by example ourselves. We don't have to wait for others to do so.

State of the Union Divide

My new masquerade in the interest of personal safety: As White and Patriotic as possible

Never have I felt such a sense of being misplaced as I do right now in the wake of this U.S. election cycle. I was less anxious after September 11, 2001. The title of this post is misleading, too. We are not a country divided, we are a nation that is shattered. Placing the entire federal government leadership in the hands of a single party sets up the potential for unimaginable tragedy.

The working class, the poor, minorities, immigrants ("illegal" or documented), the LGBTQ community, women, children, and many other conveniently-lumped groups of human beings have legitimate, profound complaints with current leadership. About the only group without an axe to grind are those with White Male Privilege, yet we elected about the most privileged White (well, orange, close enough) male possible to the highest office in the land. Yes, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rammed Hillary Clinton down our throats when it was glaringly apparent that Bernie Sanders was a cut above, able to address fully the wealth inequality that is at the core of the angst of the electorate; and without any attendant scandal. Still.

Part of the problem is that our electorate is so fragmented that their votes are based on a single issue. Blacks want a leader who will keep them alive, then, hopefully, give them more opportunity for advancement in society. Republicans are not going to reduce mass incarcerations, let alone pledge a moratorium on fatal shootings by police.

Meanwhile, immigrants from everywhere, not just south of the border, want equal opportunity. We need to work on overcoming language barriers, but they are not "taking our jobs" as many would have us believe. Frankly, nobody should be doing dangerous work like that of migrant workers for a sub-minimum wage, without proper healthcare, nutritious food, and secure lodging. "Cheap labor" is an insult that encourages poor performance, a litigious society (lawsuits are viewed as getting what the plaintiff feels is owed to them already), and a screw-you attitude toward our nation as a whole. After all, look who literally prospers from the fruits of their labor.

Women did not vote in overwhelming numbers for Clinton. I suspect many wanted the symbolism of a female leader, but were uncomfortable associating themselves (or their votes) with someone of dubious repute. Did she earn her way to the top by sticking to her values and principles, or did she compromise time and time again to survive and advance? Why they saw Trump as a viable alternative is beyond me.

Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the campaign leading up to the election was, well, the campaign. The media failed completely in holding discussion to issues of core importance. Trump was, is, and always will be, an entertainer first, a businessman second, and everything else a distant third. He was allowed to take his act, unrestrained, to every debate, town hall, and public appearance. Don Rickles could not have done it better. The insults. The distractions. The vulgar humor.

The act of running the country, however, is not a celebrity roast, or even a reality television show. It takes diplomacy, of which Trump has demonstrated zero aptitude. It takes tolerance, to which Trump has turned a deaf ear. It takes humility, for which Trump scores in negative numbers.

Trump appealed because he gave us the promise that all we had to do was elect him and all our problems would magically disappear, like he is the Great Houdini or something. Again, the showman emerges, with no substance behind it. Are we so lazy that we will freely admit we want someone else to do the work, even if that "work" in the short term undermines long range opportunities for prosperity for ourselves, our children, and others?

Despite the results, I would still like to believe the majority of U.S. citizens want our nation to be an example of charity and good will, both at home and abroad. We believe in rewarding good work, holding ourselves and each other accountable for our actions or lack thereof, and actively punishing wrongdoing.

What I fear is that a sizeable minority will take this political moment as a sign that they have permission to exercise their White Male Privilege even more destructively than is currently the case. Trump rallies have been a horror show in this regard, and I am not looking forward to inauguration day. There may be civil unrest for months, but the good news is there will no longer be complacency from any party dedicated to civil rights. We have clearly been living under a false sense of security.

Left to political devices and political "will" and whims alone, we are never going to rise to our true potential as a nation. We don't have all the answers, either, and until we embrace the successes and innovations of other countries as well as those here at home, we will flounder; and enjoy a global reputation as a population of gluttonous egomaniacs. Sound familiar? I'm Eric Eaton, and I approved this message.

A Singular "Protest"

© inusanews.com

I was hoping I could refrain from making any comment on the Colin Kaepernick incident, whereby he refused to cooperate for the national anthem before a pre-season football game last week. It is, to my mind, a relatively trivial blip on the socio-political seismograph, but there have been too many ill-conceived attempts to either criticize or defend the quarterback's stand (or lack thereof) for me to ignore.

First of all, let me acknowledge his right of refusal to participate in a patriotic exercise. Does he have the personal authority to do that? Of course he does, it is a constitutionally-guaranteed act of free speech. Heck, these days I, myself, find the Star-spangled banner ringing at least a little bit hollow considering how the culture of this nation has degenerated. Home of the brave? We're afraid of everything, and everyone. Back to Kaepernick. Do I think his (in)action had anything to do with something larger than himself? Hell, no.

One man sitting out a pre-game ritual does not in any way constitute a protest. Recruit all of your teammates to do likewise? Now you have a protest. Furthermore, you have leadership, someone courageous enough to incite others to follow suit in a non-violent act of defiance. Kaepernick clearly wants to have nothing to do with anything "team." So, he comes off as a pouting little boy, demoralized that he is no longer the starter at his position, and desperate for any publicity, good or bad. I am almost willing to bet that the whole protest angle was an afterthought. He was sulking, but suddenly recalled a way he could turn a purely selfish act into something face-saving. Is that too cynical?

Wait, you say, aren't there other examples where a single individual forced change, or demonstrated courage that initiated a chain of events by others? What about that dude who stood in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989? Look at the context. That was during a sustained mass protest by students in China. It was also an act that had strong potential for life-and-death consequences. China does not have the same set of freedoms the U.S. does, and that man was going to face some kind of very harsh punishment.

Rosa Parks, there's a real heroine, no.? I agree. What made her special is that she was no one special until she did what she did; and she likewise had more to fear than (non-existent) social media rants. A lot more. Like lynching, for example. You simply cannot compare a safe exercise in disagreement with social norms, like sitting out the national anthem, with actions that actually violate current law, let alone cultural permissions.

So, yes, you have the right to stand down from the Star-Spangled Banner, burn the flag, and even spout hate as so many have from the safety of their keyboards and snarkphones. Just be aware that the true heroes of the world will quietly conclude that you are being intolerably lame, if not simply reinforcing the attitudes already directed at those of your kind, however we lump each other these days.

Sit down if you must, speak up as you should, but get over yourself. Also, I strongly recommend that "Whites" and "Coloreds" should only be used when referring to laundry. Let's top airing the dirty stuff, shall we? We face too many critical issues to waste time with one person's ego.