|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Time to change from Analogue to Digital ‘Barriers of Silence’
-- By SkyeLee - 13 Mar 2022
The ‘Barrier of Silence’, a 1955 episode of Science Fiction Theatre, depicts malicious forces kidnaping the pilot on a flight gone wrong, before placing him within a ‘barrier of sound’. The barrier insulated him from all outside sources of sound and absorbed all noises he created within. Within days, the silence broke the pilot psychologically into hypnotic obedience to the only source of sound he could hear - commands made through a set of headphones. The devoted obedience that the silence induced was so strong, that the Voice could compel the pilot not only to give up the confidential details of his experiment, but even to forget the entire kidnapping.
Although anechoic chambers can cause individuals deep discomfort within a short period, there is little basis for claims that commands made under conditions of absolute silence engender irresistible compulsion. The science behind the show’s fantasy of the hypnotic power of ‘absolute silence’ is dubious at best, but metaphorically applied to the technological sphere, reveals important technological and psychological ramifications of the ‘Splinternet’. This is a characterisation of the Internet splintering along technological, political and commercial lines. Politically speaking, the effectiveness of a ‘barrier of sound’ is much more than mere fantasy.
From ‘Analogue’ to ‘Digital’ Barriers
Barriers have become synonymous with imbued control throughout history, although the specific nature of the barrier varies and changes depending on other factors - significantly the evolution of communication methods. Physical barriers like the Berlin wall were carefully controlled by localisation of personnel scrutinising letters, packages, and radio waves. As the medium for ‘sound’ and communication transitioned online, so followed the barriers, marking a shift from the ‘analogue’ to ‘digital’.
The modern barriers look more like the Great Firewall of China, dedicated to the preservation of the ruling party’s narrative by filtering all streams of ‘sound’ from the World Wide Web. Other countries like Iran and Belarus have also set up their own ‘walled gardens’, and to some extent other Southeast Asian countries like Thailand have shown inclinations in that direction.
Barriers to freedom in Russia’s adaptive authoritarianism?
The present changes in Russia is one demonstration of how a barrier of silence evolves. Amidst the atrocities accompanying Putin’s invasion, the barrier of sound quells whatever mostly disparate and individually undertaken protests are left, and insulates the majority from having to contend with their conscience. Queues of ordinary Russians signifying public endorsement of the war efforts and polling data showing a multi-year peak in Russian popular support, are clear indications that many have lived under the government-dictated narrative long before Facebook and Twitter were ousted on March 4.
Though Russia has been shifting from analogue to digital forms of control, it is still incomplete. Beginning with the 2019 ‘Sovereign Internet’ law, regulations have been passed to restrict control over the technical space. The testing of Russia’s ‘RuNet’ experimented with an internet operating independently from the rest of the world, insulated behind their digital Iron Curtain. As foreign media platforms and internet service providers are either censored (Twitter), blocked (Meta), or willingly withdrawn (Cogent), the separation is ripe for Russia to complete its construction of a digital barrier of silence and build its own 'Splinternet'.
Both Technological and Psychological Impacts
Accompanying Russia’s digital barrier was a flurry of VPN downloads - the top ten VPN apps on Apple and Google’s stores in Russia had six million downloads in the thirteen-day period after the invasion started. Social and news media sites like the BBC and Twitter have also started running Tor onion services for accessing unfiltered or unblocked content in Russia. This immediate subversion of Russia’s barrier partly reflects that Russia’s digital barrier is still maturing, but also that ‘barriers of sound’ in real life are rarely absolute denials of access. Crucially though, much like the barrier in Science Fiction Theatre, real-life barriers of sound operate just as much psychologically as they do technologically. The actual denial of access is only one part of the barrier. For instance, China’s ‘panopticon’ of surveillance and access to VPN backdoors means all communication is not only subject to the Great Firewall but each individual’s own restraint and filtering. Essentially, ‘subvert at your own risk’.
Barriers to freedom in American liberalism?
This evokes consideration of how much access needs to be actually restricted, to create a barrier of silence. The recent release of Trump’s ‘Truth’ social app, though purporting to be a platform for all views, seeks to carve out an internet enclave for users who adhere to a particular political or ideological viewpoint. It might further be suggested that the app is calculated to profit from the same psychological self-denial of diverse ‘sounds’. The application’s name - ‘Truth’ implicitly but unambiguously signals that its competitor media platforms peddle something other than the truth. This well-worn tactic of accusing news and media outside of the Trump mainstream as ‘fake news’ relies on the same logic as barriers (‘venture outside at your own risk’) and achieves the same effect of insulating all non-mainstream sounds within the Net.
Realistically, this non-coercive form of ‘barrier’ is unlikely to have the same effect. In free societies where infringements of the rule of law are exceptions rather than the norm, individuals who really live in politically partisan online news echo chambers are rare. Studies that demonstrate a strong indication of echo chambers or ‘filter bubbling’ often focus on one media platform, when most people get their news from a variety of sources. Even those who rely only on one source also typically rely on sources with relatively diverse audiences (commercial broadcasters for instance). Though a small minority may self-admit into echo chambers, it is a small percentage (around 5% average worldwide, slightly larger in the US). All in all, it is unlikely that this non-coercive form of the barrier of silence will become as popular as its authoritarian relative. Silencing sanctions (such as the law on knowing dissemination of false information about Russia’s armed forces that was passed just several days ago) will continue to play an indispensable role in maintaining Russia’s technological barrier of silence should she choose to continue its development.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|