Over the course of the last fortnight, a video released by some people calling themselves America’s Frontline Doctors, has driven controversy and rocked the interwebs. Ostensibly recorded by a group of medical doctors intent on sharing their cure for the COVID19 pandemic, the video was widely vilified and eventually censored by different social media platforms. While I do not have the capacity to interrogate the veracity of the claims made in the video, I am nonetheless concerned by the hostility the video drew. Perhaps even more disconcerting is the vitriol directed at the people behind the video and the blanket rejection of any and all claims made in it irrespective of the scientific evidence. In this article we look at this emerging culture of digital censorship and what this trend portends for the future of democracy.
The video in question delved into the efficacy of the drug hydroxychloroquin in the treatment of severe cases of COVID19. A group of doctors who claim to have successfully used the drug as part of their treatment regime, gave a press conference in the US capital to urge other physicians to consider using hydroxycholoroquin to save lives. Basing their argument on the empirical data they had gathered over months of fighting the pandemic, the doctors stood by their claim that the commonly available drug was the silver bullet with which to put an end to the pandemic. Led by a passionate and eloquent black lady from Texas, the doctors made the case that the drug was being ignored due to poor advise from authorities that were not well informed of the facts on the ground. The video went further to introduce some conspiracy elements suggesting that powerful actors in the pharmaceutical industry were behind the drive to keep the drug out of widespread use, as they worked on developing new drugs and vaccines to profit from the pandemic. Controversial as the video was, I believe it did not warrant the reaction it received from the establishment (read mainstream media and information platforms).
To understand the reaction to that viral video, it is important to begin by looking at the evidence that has been published with regards to the drug. Even the scientific literature on the issue is controversial, with some articles being published in leading scientific journals then later getting retracted. Early studies on the drug had suggested it helps manage the spread of the virus that causes the COVID19 disease and reduce mortality, but this was met with criticism from various quarters. Some of those opposing the early studies pointed out that their conclusions were based on limited data and rigorous evidence had not yet been shown to support any of the conclusions.
Other studies published in prestigious journals attempted to show that not only was hydrochloroquin not effective in the treatment of COVID19, in some cases it was claimed to increase the risk of death. Again the reliability of some of these new studies was questioned, with The Lancet eventually retracting some of the published papers after they failed to stand up under close scrutiny. Therefore in the scientific world, it is safe to say that opinion is divided on the issue of the drug, and there are no studies that can claim to conclusively prove the case for or against it. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for the usefulness of the drug but there is equally persuasive evidence negating it. Summed up, it is safe to say that more studies are needed before the drug can be adopted as a recommended treatment regime, or consigned to the dustbin of failed trials. We just don’t know enough to decide either way. This comprehensive article published in Nature explores the current state of knowledge on the hydroxychloroquin/COVID19 issue and is a recommended read for the curious and those who want to learn what science has to say on the issue.
As someone who stays abreast of the latest in scientific breakthroughs and has read multiple papers on both sides of the debate, I was blown away by the reaction towards the hydroxychloroquin video and the doctors behind it. The online lynch mob tore into the personal life of the lead speaker, an immigrant from Nigeria who besides saving lives in the hospital, also saves souls in church. Ad hominem attacks on the good doctor dragged her name through the mud, conflating her religious beliefs to her medical practice, and aiming to portray her as completely unqualified to offer opinion on matters to do with managing a pandemic.
The fact that the lady is a proud and educated African woman, who has worked against many odds to get to where she is in life, was too small a detail to concern her attackers. Many trolls portrayed her as being a religious zealot whose superstitious beliefs undermined her medical credentials and practice. Not only was this completely untrue, it was also unfortunate given that the US is one of countries where freedom of worship is enshrined in the constitution. To see Americans tearing into the religious beliefs of a black woman and use them to belittle her remarkable academic and professional achievements was a moment of shame for that entire nation. This goes for the entire world at large since the ad hominem attacks on doctor Immanuel and her colleagues spanned the globe.
Maybe even more terrifying is what followed from different online platforms. Facebook, Twitter and Google, some of the biggest names in the online space, went ahead to pull down the video posted by the group of doctors. Terming the video ‘fake news’ (a catch-all phrase used these days to disparage any undesired piece of information) the platforms pulled it down and boldly stated that the content in the video was untrue and not scientific. Not only did this muzzle the voices of the group of doctors, it effectively denied billions of people around the world an opportunity to hear non-mainstream opinions on the management of the pandemic. The platforms rode on the wave of popular sentiment to label the video misinformation and censor it and its distributors.
Some of the online platforms went so far as to identify users who had seen the original video and then show them content to repudiate the claims made in it. Such people would be presented with a variety of content on their social media timelines that explicitly contradicted the claims made in the doctors video. Trending topics on Twitter would have notes attached to them urging people to disregard the claims they had seen being made in the video. This is not just censorship where certain information is withheld, it is also brainwashing where only the dominant narrative is allowed and anyone who has been exposed to alternative narratives is bombarded with counter-intel (read propaganda) to forcibly control their world view.
I believe these actions by the biggest and most powerful online platforms in the world are extremely dangerous and lead to a dark path for the entire world. As more people become immersed in the online world and use these platforms to communicate with their family, friends and colleagues, the potential of manipulating the masses through misinformation, censorship and psychological operations such as those used by Cambridge Analytica, grows. The attempt by private profit-driven corporations to control the narrative and filter what information is allowed to reach people and what isn’t, constitute a dire threat to democracy globally. One that responsible governments ought to confront early on before the culture becomes entrenched.
With regards to the hydroxychloroquin video, even the scientific community is torn on the issue of the efficacy of the drug on COVID19 treatment. Some countries are actively using it as their frontline therapy to reduce COVID19 deaths and swear to its efficiency. What gives Facebook, Twitter and Google the authority to term any mention of the drug being useful as fake news? Do these technology companies have pharmaceutical researchers and doctors among their staff with the technical capacity to evaluate such claims and prove them false? And even if they had such staff, do they have research unavailable to the rest of us that conclusively proves that the drug is useless against COVID19? The leading scientific journals in the world carry articles promoting both sides of the debate so why are the tech companies taking a stand on one side? The debate on the drug is far from over, and should be allowed to continue in order for the gaps in our knowledge to be filled. None of the tech companies has any capacity whatsoever to declare the pronouncements of the doctors as being fake news or tell us what to think about the hydroxychloroquin/COVID19 therapy.
By censoring the video, online platforms decided to actively support one side of the debate while suppressing the other. This does nobody any good in the war against the pandemic, and if anything it serves to slow the progress to finding a cure. Without any evidence or expertise in the matter, it behooves the tech companies to stay out of the hydroxychloroquin debate since that is not their domain. Not only did the online platforms show they do not condone free speech, they also showed that they are not above being dragged into partisan politics. Something that they have accused other foreign tech firms of doing.
More concerning is that this digital censorship of such a critical discussion sets a dangerous precedent with massive potential for abuse. Today it is hydroxychloroquin that is in the cross-hairs of the tech companies, but who knows what it might be tomorrow. What authority do tech companies have to control what information is consumed by the public and what opinions are allowed to become popular or go viral? Have they become the gate-keepers of the truth, with the power to decide what is true and what is fake? How far does their censorship extend, and who regulates them? If for instance they decided to play partial during election campaigns, and censored one candidate’s content while promoting another in such a way as to swing the election, would this be acceptable? Is this overarching censorship power something private corporations should be allowed to wield? I believe letting the big tech companies have unfettered powers to control what people see, hear, talk, share and even think is an extremely dangerous and dark path. One that could have huge negative consequences on the future of democracy, human rights and even basic freedoms around the world.
At the end of the day, no one party has a monopoly on the truth. Nobody knows it all and this is why discourse is such a paramount part of knowledge generation. With regards to hydroxychloroquin and its usefulness in treating COVID19, the jury is still out and nobody should lie that the question has been proven one way or another. It smacks of outright misinformation to make claims that any mention of the drug being useful is fake news, even when those sharing the information base it on anecdotal evidence from their own experience. This misinformation through censorship, is precisely what the tech companies are doing. They are choking free speech just as draconian regimes in other parts of the world do.
The online platforms are the ones spreading fake news since they are leading society to reject a drug against all the evidence and without giving space for further discussion and research. They should quit trying to influence the information flow over matters which they have no capacity to interrogate. All people of good will who value the tenets of free speech should rightfully condemn the tech companies for censoring voices that need to be heard. Even the tech moguls at the heads of these corporations have themselves spoken out about digital censorship and its risk for democracy. They should heed their own advice and resist the temptation to appoint themselves the digital gatekeepers of the truth. Let all parties speak and everyone can then decide what is best for them based on all available information. The censoring of the America’s front-line doctors video and those who promoted it is an attempt at hijacking free speech and democracy. One that should be resisted by all.
