How to Beat Online Censorship
The key to evading censorship is understanding why it happens.
Do you want to speak freely on platforms like Twitter or YouTube?
If yes, read on.
You might be wondering if there is a way to subvert the algorithm. I wouldn’t know, this guide is on subverting people.
But, I am getting ahead of myself.
Before we can defeat censorship we need to understand what it is and why people do it, in other words we need to ask: why does the censor censor?
Two Theories of Censorship
The popular image of censorship is that of Georg Orwell’s “1984”, where The Ministry of Truth deliberately publishes propaganda it knows to be false and suppresses facts it knows to be true.
The loyalty of the ministry’s employees is ensured through “doublethink”, the act of holding two opposing beliefs at the same time.
E.g. The Party has the right to rewrite history, but also history has never been rewritten.
In short, “1984” claims censorship is about suppressing information that contradicts an officially sanctioned worldview.
We might call this the control theory of censorship.
But, is that it or is there another explanation?
A different way of looking at censorship is as a means of protecting revered individuals, institutions or objects from insult. In this view censorship is an act of outrage, similar to a believer seeing the defilement of an idol or tempel.
Let’s call this the taboo theory of censorship.
According to the taboo theory, information is not suppressed because it contradicts accepted truths, but because it implies disparagement of sacred persons or things.
On the surface the two theories seem about equal, most expressions predicted to be censored by the control theory would also be expected to be banned under the taboo theory.
In an authoritarian state, negative assertions about the dictator could be interpreted both as a factual challenge to the regime ideology proclaiming their infallibility and a social indiscretion violating their elevated status.
So, which is correct? The control theory or the taboo theory?
Comparing & Contrasting
The control theory requires that the censor is willing to suppress information they know to be true, but if they know it’s true, why suppress it?
If a loyalist admits evidence refuting the state ideology exist, they aren’t a loyalist anymore and would have no more desire to prevent the regime’s downfall than the dissident they would be censoring, correct?
For this reason, I don’t believe the control theory could apply outside the dictator and their inner circle, the rank and file would need to believe censorship serves a different function.
The taboo theory doesn’t require the censor to know the information refutes anything, only that it angers them or would anger their fellow believers.
There are many examples of believers in a particular religion or political ideology demanding the quelling of criticism because they find it offensive, even if they don’t hold an esteemed rank, therefore taboo theory can readily apply to the average follower.
But how does taboo theory fare in relation to the dictator and their inner circle?
It’s conceivable that the dictator and those close to them are true believers only in their right to rule and not in the official ideology explaining how said rule is fair, justified and “for your own good” to the commoners.
However, it’s also possible that they see their wealth as fair payment for their hard work and their acts of oppression as deserved punishment for ungrateful subjects.
In this view censorship can be explained as a result of anger over having these beliefs challenged, even though they are sincerely held.
It might seem most reasonable to assume control theory is the way high-ranking members of the regime understand censorship and taboo theory is how low-ranking ones understand it, but is it?
If we could, in the spirit of Occam’s razor, use one explanation instead of two, why shouldn’t we?
On top of this I have a personal reluctance to attributing malice, because I see it as such a cop out, hence I lean towards taboo theory in most, if not all, cases.
Fighting Back
Now that the theory is down, let’s discuss how to apply it.
If Twitter was a “control theory”-style censorship regime, then all information contradicting the truths it was designed to protect would be banned and it wouldn’t help persuading the censors they are in the wrong, because they already know.
The platform, and those like it, would be impregnable to dissent.
However, “taboo theory”-style censorship is less strict in that it allows contradicting facts, as long as they aren’t also insulting or offensive.
For the dissident, the key to evading the censor’s wrath lies in countering the ruling narrative without disparaging its believers or their idols.
In saying a doctrine is false, but not that one is foolish for believing it. In denying an authority figure, but not declare them incompetent. In making sacred objects out to be trivial, but not proclaim them repugnant.
Good dissenting speech aims to remove positive traits from what is under critique, not impose negative ones.
Aether & Water
To say two things are “like fire and water” means that they are polar opposites and often implies volatility. In short, they don’t mix.
But what about aether and water?
Luminiferous aether, or just aether, was a substance theorized to exist during the 19th century, it was understood as a medium carrying light through space.
Aether was thought to be everywhere at once, but at the same time undetectable by most methods.
If fire and water are elements reacting violently when they collide, aether and water (or any physical substance) are elements that can’t touch, but glide through one another like a ghost through a wall.
This intangibility is a property information rebels should imitate in relation to the narrative police. Instead of seeking confrontation, they should remain inconspicuous and creep up on the regime like a slow poison.