How to Use Strategic Silence
Social media could use some silence
“Silence” is often considered a lack of response.
Yet, it’s a powerful tool when used strategically. It can signal authority, lack of consent, agreement, or disagreement, among many things.
Michel Foucault (1990) writes in his History of Sexuality:
…we must try to determine the different ways of not saying such things…
Strategic Silence as a media tool
Strategic silence refers to the process of conscious and purposeful failing to mention a material fact.
It focuses on being strategic about what information is amplified, and thus glorified, in order not to allow harmful messages to spread.
Danah Boyd of Data & Society and Joan Donovan of Harvard Kennedy School write about Strategic silence:
…a mechanism of editorial discretion by which those who have the ability to publish or amplify a particular voice, perspective, or incident weigh the benefits and costs of doing so against broader social values, including enabling an informed public and building community.
For journalists, this might be straight-forward. Amplify the voices that you believe are “good” for the society, and omit some details in news to serve public good.
Couple examples of strategic silence in journalism:
- Not reporting suicide cases
- Omitting mass shooter’s name and so-called manifesto
- Not covering White violence or alt-right demonstrations
Where do social media platforms come into play?
Social media platforms run on algorithms, as we all know.
Your News Feed is different than mine. It’s all determined by a series of mathematical equations solely fed by our past behavior.
When put this way, it’s easy to assume that algorithms are immutable and hard-coded. Even if this is true, that does not mean platforms are not responsible for which voices are amplified through their technology.
Far from censorship, platforms actively deleting misinformation or accounts with hate speech should be viewed as strategic.
This is difficult as, after many years of trying, even the man who built Facebook’s algorithms can’t fix the problem.
Regardless, Internet’s social role is now arguably bigger than any national government. Just like rulers are responsible for what’s going on in a country, companies are responsible for what’s happening on their platforms.
Then let’s silence harmful content, right?
There are critics to “strategic silence”, too.
Tyler Cowen says, as he frequently does in his Marginal Revolution blog, we should “solve for the equilibrium”.
There are short-term benefits of strategically silencing some narrative on social media platforms, but in the long-term silencing certain voices is wrong, because institutions and searchers will adjust.
A.k.a. people will find the “bad stuff” no matter what.
Moreover, a thousands-of-years-old question is worth asking : Who determines what’s right or wrong? (i.e. quis custodiet ipsos custodes)
Do you trust these politicians asking Zuckerberg how Internet works with defining what social media companies do to prevent misinformation? How about platforms themselves? Who are they to determine what’s good for a country or the world?
Another counter-argument for strategic silence is that many believe, Google and Facebook (and other attention machines which run ads based on user behavior) have done more good for the world than harm. Therefore, status quo is better than any regulation to shape their algorithms.
Think about “strategic silence” next time you read misinformation and social media platforms in the same article. There is not one single solution, yet we can keep this in mind next time we are retweeting/sharing something on social media.
Follow me on Twitter for more similar content.
