Politics encroach on all aspects of our lives. Powers at be is a column written by External Politics Columnist Maya Tommasi about the ways in which political power — corporate, federal, provincial, Indigenous and municipal — affect the lives of those who call themselves part of the UBC community.
Maya Tommasi (she/her) is a third-year political science student and The Ubyssey’s external politics columnist. She holds a previous degree in psychology and has five years of research experience, and is a proud trans woman and immigrant. You can find her work here and on her Substack.
Given this is the debut article in my new column in The Ubyssey, I would like to start by acknowledging that the lands I work, study and live are the traditional and unceded lands of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) and Selilwitulh (Tsleil- Waututh) nations. This land, which has been forcefully stolen by the colonial forces which built the Canadian state. All which I write seeks to acknowledge this history.
I decided to begin this column about politics by talking about freedom of speech in the digital age. I believe the rise of the internet and AI may revolutionise our politics much like the printing press did 600 years ago. It is impossible to talk about modern politics without recognizing this reality — so what better place to start.
The world of information has always been crucial for the maintenance of democracy and liberal values. Here, of course, we are not talking about ‘liberal’ in the small sense, such as those who subscribe to the ideals of the Liberal Party of Canada. Instead, we are talking about liberal democracy, the underlying political system which has guided Western countries to the freedom and success we cherish.
Freedoms of thought, assembly, expression and association are all core to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and amongst others, the US constitution. Freedom of speech, although sometimes misunderstood, means that people, particularly those who held views which might be critical of those in power, were allowed to express said speech, keep them in account if you will.
As journalists, myself included, we pride ourselves in the role of press freedom in democracy, speaking truth to power, shining a light on the malpractices and corruption in a system. Democracy dies in darkness — famously as the Washington Post masthead claims.
This freedom has never been supposed to be absolute, however; freedom of speech is not designed that way.
For example, just since joining this publication, my editor, who ironically will be the first to read this, has been relentless in showing and teaching us new columnists about the Canadian Association of Journalists' code of ethics that define the boundaries of what and how expression can be used responsibly, as have countless editors before him. This includes but is not limited to: verifying sources before making claims, divulging conflicts of interest and protecting the rights of those you feature in an article.
I am not writing about journalism in some sort of self-aggrandizing tirade about the glories of journalism, but because of the importance of political information, which for decades was filtered through the media, and in turn ethical guidelines which we follow — granted there has always been a lack of diversity in voices which are platformed.
Modern media does not exist in the rules of old; we no longer exclusively read newspapers or watch newscasts for information. More and more social media and our peer users play a role in our media diets. While I think this gives rise to many opportunities — namely platforming marginalized voices unrepresented in those newspapers or newscasts — with it comes many perils.
Who will guard us from misinformation, who will protect us from targeted harassment? For a time, there were protections in social media, verification systems and protections for hate speech. These systems, due to a private ownership model and lack of regulation, are vulnerable to change, and may have been captured by bad faith actors, who in their crusade for alleged free speech threaten our speech and risk pandemonium.
The most obvious example of this is Twitter — now X — which due to demonstrably false accusations of censoring conservatives’ speech (multiple studies have shown that actually it was right wing speech that has been amplified on social media, including Twitter) has adopted a whole new ethos under Elon Musk, one where there is minimal verification or user accountability for content, and little ability for minority users to escape mass harassment campaigns due to Musk’s policies that facilitate hate speech.
The effect of this is twofold. One, it legitimizes the fringe biased speech and conspiracy theories, say like when Musk himself agreed with an antisemitic post claiming Jews push hatred against whites — sentiment dangerously close to the infamous antisemitic great replacement conspiracy theory. A speech free-for-all would already be terrifying enough, effectively harassing dissident voices into silence and ineffectively gating misinformation.
Need only we remember how due to harassment and misinformation, Twitter itself had gone from being 'the free speech wing of the free speech party,' to the much safer, albeit heavily moderated Twitter we might remember before 2022. New Twitter doesn't even approach free speech in a relatively value-neutral way it once did, despite the way Musk has branded it. His version of free speech is not value neutral; it is heavily biased towards and protective of a very specific, very prejudiced, very ‘Elon Musk’ set of values.
Famously, the term “cisgender” to Musk is regarded as an unacceptable slur, while he liberally engages in actual slurs which I could never publish in this publication. Twitter has seen a massive increase in hate speech since Elon’s takeover, and given his specific obsession with trans people, the rise in transphobic hate has been particularly sharp.
Meta followed Musk’s lead by significantly changing their hate speech policy, in a move that human rights groups have criticized. In order to appease the political whims of Donald Trump, and TikTok potentially doing the same, where does that leave us? There are many places we can take this question, the future of media, free speech, the conflict of accumulated capital and democracy. These are big questions that have multiple libraries’ worth of content to talk about.
So, I ask myself again, where does that leave us? Us of the UBC community, a community of young students who might move on to shape our future. A community of bright minds whose few years in this university might shape their lives forever. But also, a community full of diversity, POC, immigrant and queer kids who have a space to feel safe and learn about academics and themselves, maybe even for the first time. A community which is giving me hope of a future which could be. A community whose essence — due to the cascading political forces south of our border, and the whims of some of the richest and most powerful men in the world — might be under threat.
Our friends might be under threat. I fear for the adverse effects some of our most marginalized might endure as a consequence of the new online environment. To me it seems inevitable that hate will spread as a consequence of new social media policies. We might not be able to directly affect social media’s politics, but our actions matter. We can be there to protect our friends, our communities and ourselves. Be there for each other, if you can, try to disconnect and focus on the people in your life. And if you want to do more help in local causes, food banks or join activist groups — we have many of those on campus, as well as out.
In times like these I am reminded of, as a teenager, watching Requiem For The American Dream, in particular the part where Noam Chomsky recounts something late historian Howard Zinn would say: “What matters is the countless small deeds of unknown people, who lay the basis for the significant events that enter history.” Chomsky then concludes: “They are the ones who’ve done things in the past, and they are the ones who will have to do it in the future”.
These may be scary times, but it is everyday people like you and me who shape the world. Try as they might, men like Musk cannot control our future.
This is an opinion article. It reflects the contributor's views and does not reflect the views of The Ubyssey as a whole. Contribute to the conversation by visiting ubyssey.ca/pages/submit-an-opinion.
Share this article
First online
