Author: Robert Howell

As if the normal sources of flim-flam journalism weren’t enough, now OpenAI has developed an artificial intelligence that can generate news stories that seem as real to most users as stories by The New York Times. The code hasn’t been fully released, but even if it isn’t, you can bet there are others developing the same technology. Good times!

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-08-02/not-your-fathers-bots

A government should not use intimidation to suppress criticism and dissent. Private citizens are entitled to criticize their leaders without fear that those leaders will retaliate in a manner that jeopardizes their lives.  Of all of the checks on governmental power enshrined in democratic institutions, this is perhaps the most important.  

It is easy to recognize traditional methods of suppressing civilian dissent.  In Argentina in the 1970s citizens were famously “disappeared” based on their political views.  In the former Soviet Union dissidents found themselves freezing in Siberian gulags, and in modern day Russia opponents of Vladimir Putin find themselves arrested on obscure charges with their financial holdings confiscated by the state.  During the Mao era, China engaged in public shaming of those who stepped out of line, forcing them to offer “self-criticisms” that left them pariahs.  Contemporary China is subtler.  As reported in a recent edition of The Economist, China might be using technology and surveillance to build a “social credit” monitoring system that would undermine the ability of “problematic” citizens to travel and do business. 

I suspect we Americans are wise to this sort of governmental intimidation and are committed enough to the tenets of democratic governance that we will not let such tactics take hold here.  But are we aware that we are facing a subtler, but still significant danger in Donald Trump’s tweets?

Juxtaposing something so silly as a tweet with these extreme measures might seem reactionary.  But it might be the apparent innocuousness of this medium that will allow it to cause such harm. Imagine the President, any President, coming onto television and actually naming names, discrediting ordinary citizens simply because those citizens disagreed with him.  “Don’t trust this guy,” the president might say.  “He’s a fraud.  A con-artist.”  I hope we wouldn’t tolerate such a misuse of presidential power and authority.  It might not completely wreck the life of its target, but chances are it would be extremely harmful.  Suddenly, this man is pulled out of his everyday life in the pursuit of happiness and is famous, or infamous, for being a fraud, a con-artist.  Of course many people won’t believe the president, but many will. 

Put yourself into those shoes.  Millions now know you, and millions think badly of you—rightly or wrongly.  A few unhinged thousands probably hate you, and might be inspired to violence out of a misguided sense of patriotism. Every time you walk out of the house, every time you enter a business meeting, every time you hand your ID to a cashier you have to wonder whether you are subjecting yourself to scorn and distrust by people who know the most powerful person in the world has named you as an enemy.  America might not have a formal system of “social credit,” but it’s pretty clear when someone’s credit score has tanked.

The biggest impact of such governmental intimidation is likely not on the targeted individual.  His prospects in life have been harmed, but the effects of that are trivial compared to the chilling effect on the millions of people who are now unlikely to speak their mind.  In the face of such a threat, most people will—consciously or not—choose to stay off the radar, especially if they are apt to be critical of the government.  If dissent isn’t silenced, it is certainly much quieter and voiced at your own risk.  This is a dangerous situation for a democracy.

            I think we would recognize the danger of a president reading a list of his enemies on television.  But we have to recognize that it is just as unacceptable if it is done on Twitter.   Twitter is likely to be more dangerous, in fact.  Donald Trump currently has approaching 18 million followers on Twitter, reaching many more people than your typical presidential broadcast.  Tweeting takes moments and can be done by a single individual, as opposed to a television broadcast that requires planning and the cooperation of networks.  Due to its simplicity and its availability, tweeting is more likely to be done without thought of consequences. There are simply far fewer checks on presidential power if the president uses Twitter instead of television.  If we allow the president to call out or intimidate ordinary, defenseless individuals, we have allowed a dangerous erosion of our democratic system.

            The Twitter problem is not just a Trump problem.  It will be a problem no matter the president.  Trump just happens to have seen the potential of this platform in a way other politicians haven’t yet.  And, Trump has already used it to call out individuals—from union leaders to journalists to actresses–who disagree with him.  And, of course, the Twitter problem isn’t just a Twitter problem.  Our ever-connected world provides numerous platforms for this abuse of power.  It is precedent setting time, America.  The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights weren’t thinking about Twitter when they contemplated their drafts, but I don’t think anyone should be in doubt about what they would say about using governmental power to intimidate its citizens.  We have to recognize presidential use of social media for what it is, and curtail its abuses before disagreement becomes too dangerous.  The question of how that should be done is no doubt tricky and deserves open debate.  That something should be done, however, is clear.