Invited by Google Europe to attend a brainstorming session in Paris on the decline of truth, the rise of fake news and ways to counter both, I began my presentation by placing the problem in historical context.
I cited George Orwell’s Looking Back on the Spanish War, in which the author explains that, for him, “history stopped in 1936,” because it was there, in Spain, that he discovered for the first time “newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts.”
It was there that he sensed that “the very concept of objective truth,” ruined by fascism in its red and brown forms, was “fading out of the world,” and it was there, in effect, that men like Joseph Goebbels (“I’m the one who decides who is Jewish and who isn’t”) and later US President Donald Trump (and his “alternative facts”) became possible.
However, as I went on to point out, several intellectual shake-ups occurred before and after the rise of totalitarianism.
First, the Kantian “critique,” which separated the noumenal from the phenomenal realm, limited our knowledge to the latter and posited that we can know phenomena only to the extent that our senses, understanding and reason allow. This critique injects into our relationship with truth a measure of subjectivity of which Brexit’s proponents might be today’s willing victims.
Second, a Nietzschean “perspectivism” turned truth into a “point of view” and judged to be “true” that point of view that makes a being stronger, and “false” that which saddens or diminishes them.
It triggered a second intellectual earthquake, the aftershocks of which necessarily rippled through political systems, giving rise to the metaphysical possibility of leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Third, there was the post-Nietzscheans’ “deconstructionism.” By historicizing the “will to truth” (Michel Foucault), putting truth “in quotation marks” (Jacques Derrida), separating the sign from its referent (Louis Althusser) and miring the obvious in a miasma of charts and graphs (Claude Levi-Strauss) or tying it up in Borromean knots (Jacques Lacan), they probably caused people to lose contact with the simple, robust and irrefutable aspects of the truth.
I then focused on the responsibility of the Internet and Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon for the following sequence of events:
First, an almost infinite amount of speech is set free by digital democracy. The Web then becomes a crowd, a free-for-all, where everyone shows up armed with his or her personal opinions, convictions and truth.
At the end of a shift that was nearly imperceptible amid the virtual roar of tweets, retweets and posts, we demand for our newly affirmed truth the same respect that was paid to the old truth.
We started with the equal right to express our beliefs and wound up conceding that all expressed beliefs have equal value. We began by asking simply to be heard, then demanded that listeners respect our utterances, whatever they might think of them, and ended by warning them not to rank one statement above another or assert that there might be a hierarchy of truths.
We thought we were democratizing the “courage of truth” that was so dear to the later Foucault. We thought we were giving every friend of the truth the technical means with which to contribute, boldly but modestly, to the adventures of knowledge.
Instead, we convened a feeding frenzy. Truth’s body was laid out on the table and, fueled by a cannibalistic urge, we set to tearing it apart. Each of us stitched together a patchwork of certitude and suspicion from the bloody, putrid shreds.
This spectacle promptly gave way, minus Hellenic elegance, to the perversity of a new generation of Sophists holding that truth is a wavering shadow, that the human is the measure of all things and that the truth of each is precisely equal to that of their neighbor.
Given this, and because Google Europe was hosting the event, I proposed three concrete and eminently strategic ideas to the company’s president for partnerships and strategic relations in Europe, the Middle East and Africa Carlo d’Asaro Biondo.
The first proposal is a hall of shame, where, in partnership with the world’s 50, 100 or 200 largest newspapers, the most dangerous fake-news items at any given moment would be listed in real time. Second, a competition on the model of France’s 18th-century academies — from which no less than Rousseau’s two Discourses emerged — would be held. Denizens of the Web would propose a document, video or other work whose power of truth or satire could neutralize the most harmful fake news, with the winner funded to produce the proposed work.
Finally, two-and-a-half centuries after Diderot, a new encyclopedia — yes, an encyclopedia, a real one, the opposite of Wikipedia and its turbid entries — would be produced. Who other than one of the global tech firms has the power — should it decide to use it — to bring together thousands of real experts capable of drawing up an inventory of the knowledge available to us in every discipline?
The choice is clear: encyclopedia or ignorance.
Mend the fabric of the truth or resign ourselves to its definitive rending.
Plunge deeper into the cave, dim and clamorous, or begin to look for the way out.
I would not want to lend undue importance to a single Google event, but could it not be taken as a wake-up call, a challenge to begin a process of critical questioning? Might not those who are responsible for the worst be willing to shoulder some responsibility for repairing the damage, for building up after tearing down? If not them, then who?
Bernard-Henri Levy is a founder of the Nouveaux Philosophes (New Philosophers) movement. His books include Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism, American Vertigo: Traveling America in the Footsteps of Tocqueville and most recently, The Empire and the Five Kings.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose