Under the shadow of World War II, Karl Popper, one of the 20th century’s greatest minds, wrote his work, “The Open Society and its Enemies”. This complex and deep work is one of the most important statements on preserving and protecting liberal democracy. Whilst not without his critics, much of what Popper wrote in the mid-1940s still holds.
The rise of the internet and our ability to share information at very low transactional costs has been an extraordinary achievement for humanity. In less than half my lifetime, we have seen a democratization of human knowledge that few could have foreseen. It is truly remarkable and should be celebrated and preserved. However, there is a dark side. Over the past decade, we have seen the emergence of another enemy of an open society: the rise of anonymous, algorithmically driven communications where disinformation and incivility can flourish. Increasingly, we find ourselves in the thought bubble that our digital footprints and the attached algorithms suggest we would like.
To be a genuinely open society, we must have the ability to understand who is saying what and to whom. Online anonymity undermines an open society, and on this measure, things have undoubtedly worsened in the past decade. Any benefits of anonymity – providing a voice for minorities and marginalised groups, those who previously would have been shut down – are now diminishing. The cons far outweigh the pros.
We cannot continue to allow unfettered anonymous publication any more than we should allow the hiding of faces at political or protest gatherings. We know that for individuals who act anonymously, it’s easier to feel prone to exaggeration, distortion and dishonesty. Invisibility is cover for impunity and relinquishing personal responsibility. Sunlight remains a powerful disinfectant.
The Parliament has shown a willingness to regulate the use of social media by children, and I believe there is a need to extend this to ensure that anonymous posting is subject to considered, albeit robust, new limits. For digital platforms that hide behind the notion that they are not publishers, this protection should only be preserved for identifiable posters; they can continue to allow anonymous postings, but they will assume the full legal responsibilities for these publications.
This approach would also likely spark further debate; for example, how open would we expect political communication to be? Would there be an appetite to address the impact of algorithms that exclusively target one audience over another and instead facilitate ways to ensure political messaging is openly accessible to most, if not all, of an electorate? Without new ideas, the increasing segmentation and siloing of thought will threaten the very basis of our liberal democracy, which gives us so much. I acknowledge the potential for harm in pursuing important digital reforms without due care. Still, the fundamental principles of liberal democracy are at risk if we do not address this far-far greater harm.
One of the most commonly considered passages from the Open Society and its Enemies pertains to the so-called paradox of tolerance: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance… We must therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate intolerance”. This is a challenging idea as, by its very nature, we are limiting what we value so highly in a liberal democracy: freedom of speech. I would argue that tackling algorithmically driven, anonymous communication will help to mitigate disinformation and reduce to a minimum the need for restriction of speech. It will be far more challenging to undermine tolerance and social cohesion in a world where you cannot hide behind a disguise – digital or physical.
You might ask why a university Vice-Chancellor is writing this. As I noted in my opening statement to the Senate Inquiry into anti-Semitism on campus, we have lived to experience the damage that this issue and current settings are giving rise to:
“If I may close on a reflection that particularly troubles me and many of my team at Deakin. In such an emotionally charged period, one of hurt and pain for too many at the most personal of levels, fractures and conflict are not completely surprising. But the speed and the sheer scale of the breakdown of social cohesion points to troubling facets of the Australian community at present. With ease and anonymity, actors of ill intent were able to harness the power of social media, amongst other means, to divide our community, and feed a sense of prejudice and opposition to any shared ties that bind.”
The very substance upon which we operate as a university is the fearless exploration and development of ideas. If we cannot openly debate ideas, consider robust areas of difference and understand why others have a different viewpoint, then we undermine, possibly fatally, one of our primary reasons for being. Academic and intellectual freedom can only flourish in an open society, and, by definition, its enemies are our enemies.
I want to ensure we can continue providing the environment I saw last week at a university gathering where students from the most extraordinary range of backgrounds, nationalities, religions and experiences came together in an inadvertent but powerful demonstration of social cohesion. As Clark Kerr, the architect of the University of California system, said in the 1960s, “The purpose of the university is to make students safe for ideas – not ideas safe for students”, something we cannot do without full, free and frank debate.
The proposal floated above is complex and challenging – but so have been many concepts we have had to embrace to ensure we protect what we value most greatly. The democratisation of knowledge and communication that we have seen in the past 30 years has been an outstanding achievement for humanity – let us not put that at risk by allowing anonymous, algorithmic communications to drive a continued decline in social cohesion and threaten the very basis of our open society.
Professor Iain Martin is Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University.
