Combating the echo chamber of bigotry

This writing is put together hours after the entire world witnessed the tragic Christchurch Mosque attack in New Zealand — that left 49 dies, few dozens physically injured and many more left psychologically scarred. Maybe for life. This particular incident was so appalling because the attacker — or rather, the terrorist engaged the audience in live video and later even managed to publish his own manifesto that was eerily similar to many alt-right propagandas in scarcely moderated forums such as 4chan.

What the incident illustrates is the negative consequence of tolerating dangerous discourse in both our civic and public life. The forum that allows exchange of similar racially charged opinions without constraints ended up emboldening the entire narrative in a literal digital echo chamber of bigotry. The attacker behavior then can be seen in two motives, one — the sinister motive to spread the live-consequence of his action to the world, and two — the search for validation/ for acknowledgment from the like-minded audience.

Another tragedy to highlight in this instance is that the just like a double-edged-sword, the internet can be utilized both to free us and trapped us, if not enabling us to become lone terrorist. Congregating for bigotry was objectively harder in pre-internet past because you run the risk of identified as guilty of malicious intent — when found out of espousing malicious content in public areas (such as tavern or park) and or guilty by association (when you have to be physically there to talk to likeminded bigots). Not to mention the literal cost of mobilizing your physical self and audience (if you need any). Anonymity and the convenience of connecting from your basement/room removed those barriers. It is easier now for you to congregate for bigotry, to access the digital echo chamber of bigotry.

How can we prevent such tragedy in the future: The question we need to ask is whether unfettered access to information and absolute internet neutrality principle is needed in our current society?

My answer is no. We are still individuals that may be trapped in our subjective truth and can ended up hurting ourselves and others if left unchecked.

I propose two things.

Number one, echo chamber that promotes and validates evil intentions should be actively diminished. The principle that should embrace is that neutrality does not translates into the willful or intentional tolerance towards insidious minds and dangerous behaviors. There is a limit to a debate, to an open discussion. To freedom of expression. Forums/ youtube channel, accounts need to be moderated. And the way to ensure it is to hold those entities liable to a universally agreed limitation to expression and discourse. In the age of machine learning and more than capable web-crawler programs, the question of policing your products is a question of market positioning and branding — one that should be constrained to a enforced regulations both in national and international levels.

Number two, to fight the discourse actively and consistently. This is the harder one to implement. The ideal is that both formal and informal authorities in our society combat insidious narratives of racial, religious, and even political extremism wherever and whenever they find it. If consistency of acceptance of insidious ideas breeds echo chamber of bigotry, then we need to remove that consistency of acceptance. It is then, become the duty of everyone to remind and fight the narrative. From our esteemed politicians, academics, prominent social figures, and.. us.

It takes mild courage to remind some random stranger in the internet to behave nicely and stop circulating racially charged news/comments. It takes significant courage to correct or colleagues at work, our teachers, our religious figures, and our politicians that they are about to cross the line that we won’t tolerate. And it especially takes immense courage to consistently remind our spouse, our parents, our in laws, and our best friend that they might actively or unintentionally engaged in the insidious discourse that can prove fatal in the future. To love is not to accept someone unconditionally, just as we need to strive to be better each day — we must also be courageous to remind our closest ones that they may also risk of engaging and or contributing to the echo chamber of bigotry — however unlikely.

With deep sorrow, Jakarta March 15th 2019.

Naufal