Too much of a threat for facebook...

Apologies to the many fans I had as the main contributor to the Bristol Anarchist Federation facbeook page, but it is no more. It violated the nebulous and randomly enforced community standards (or got on the nerves on the wrong person or people), and was deleted permanently with out even the usual option to appeal. Others who have been in this situation have said that attempts to recreate similar pages (even with differing names or a different admin team) to deleted ones have seen them pretty quickly pulled from the site.

It's got me thinking about social media more in general, and the fact it seems like perhaps it is coming to an end in terms of its use at getting ideas out to the wider class, It's not dead for this purpose yet, but its certainly heading in that direction.

1. Site algorithms make sure we mostly only see and hear what we already agree with, with the exception of the occasional 'outrage generator article' about 'millenials doing whatever'.
2.Corporate news outlets (and far right outlets with a lot of finance) have overtaken the plucky anarchist upstarts when it comes to getting noticed 'organically',
3.The same institutions can simply spend their way to being noticed above us, even when they lack the skills,
4. Even if we wanted to, and could afford to, we can't pay to push content like they do. A friend tried to spend free advertising credits on a People's Assembly event, only to be told his group 'did not have the authorisation to run ads related to politics or issues of national importance'.
5. Major platforms, such as facebook, paypal, twitter, and youtube, have shown and increasing willingness to close the accounts of 'extremists on both sides' to fulfil an advertiser and government friendly liberal ideal,
6. There will certainly be more government pressure for Facebook to curb potential dissent after five weeks of riots in France largely spread by social media (much as there was pressure on blackberry whose messenger helped spread rioting in the UK back in 2011).

That said, social media does provide a useful space for the creation of communities that would otherwise be too marginalised to exist outside of our biggest cities. Though, with the american 'anti sex' laws many of these communities (queer, trans and sex worker especially) are already being forced out.

Social media is also still a powerful tool when it comes to getting people to events (Bristol Afed is going to have to do some re-thinking about how we advertise, as many of our discussion or protest attendees spot things on facebook). Some events go viral and get 200 people when you'd normally only muster 20, some go really viral and you set Paris ablaze. Some just make sure to remind the couple of dozen people who like your book group that it is happening this thursday and they should come along.

I mean, we all know facebook/twitter/youtube/etc are terrible, but we moved to them and used them for the same reason as most - everyone else was there. There was little point sticking to our own corners of the internet without attempting to spread the message via social media, those sites we still have (like this one) get much of their traffic driven to them by social media. As the Schnews team said back in 2014 about the decline of their website and Indymedia: facebook killed the internet star. https://corporatewatch.org/facebook-killed-the-internet-star-reflections-on-radical-media/

Its a big loss in terms of what the internet could be, was, and to a less extent is. More people than ever use the internet, but fewer than ever stray from the bright lights and advertising of the corporate sites, and when they do its only to briefly read one page before going back to the never ending feed of new, and carefully curated, information.

We need to be thinking seriously though, what will we do when social media shuts us out? Sure, our own groups, and maybe even wider communities, can communicate online, but only the most dedicated will stumble in to them without the say-so of facebook. We've had it alright for awhile, social media was an almost universally tolerant place, after all they needed our membership and our content (that being the products they sell to advertisers). Maybe they feel more secure now, that they can bend a little to the pressure of those advertisers (and government censorship), to cut off the less 'desirable' aspects, loose 10% of their content, or 5% of their members. They won't clear us out entirely of course, but whilst they can delete all our pages, they wouldn't even need to. Simply ensure that despite all the 'view first' 'favourite' options, that non-advertiser friendly content (like anti-capitalism) just doesn't show up that often, and is largely kept in a non-threatening form, an 'edgy' curio, much as it is in the pages of VICE.

Can we go backwards? Could indymedia ever work in 2020 (without a facebook page!) Will we rekindle the habit of text-outs for protests, and actually reading through our mailing list inboxes? Will everyone get sick of facebooks shit, and jump ship to one of the constant stream of so far failed 'non corporate alternatives'? Or go back to RSS and favourites, rather than likes and shares? Are there applications and tools that will be far safer from the reach of the censors, without isolating us from most internet users?

Or will we simply have to go back to flyers and flyposters, stickers and graffitti, viewing the late 90s - early 2010s as a anomolous golden age when anarchists could spread news with the same ease as the corporations. Will we end up looking at the internet as much the same way we do the TV now. Go 'wasn't it great when we could compete with the corporations when it came to getting news out', but see it as something in the past. Cuz sure we can sometimes get a foot in the door and say some good stuff, but mostly its a tool for the elites, not the rebels.