The SVP censored again?

At the very end of last week, the YouTube company deleted a video by the Zurich SVP denouncing immigration to Switzerland and its consequences for security and welfare. On learning of the company's decision, the party immediately denounced it as censorship.

Before we get too deep into this controversy, let's remind ourselves that YouTube, like Facebook, Airbnb and Amazon, is what we call a platform. This term was coined in the 1990s to designate generic infrastructures capable of fulfilling a range of functions. The notion of platform can refer to a number of meanings: it can be an infrastructure open to all, a place to stand up and speak out, or a foundation.

For a long time, digital platforms were seen solely as platforms in the sense of infrastructures made available to all, where anyone could write, publish or say whatever they liked. The company did not consider itself responsible for the content, since it only provided a framework and was not the author of the content. Take Airbnb, for example, which claimed to be no more than a platform for putting people in touch with what they had always done, namely renting out or letting out accommodation.

But this position has become untenable, because the major digital platforms have forgotten that the computer code that composes them and the narratives they construct structure the activities that take place on them. Indeed, the algorithms that structure the information on a site like YouTube are not neutral. They strongly influence the activity that takes place there. Facebook, in particular, has learned the hard way that all the features it offers can have a very negative impact on its brand image. The U.S. presidential election scandals are a case in point: it was precisely because Facebook offered the possibility for others to connect to its data network and use its infrastructure via related sites, that manipulations were able to take place. On the other hand, these digital giants have built their history around the myth of limitless freedom of expression.

All these platforms have had to develop regulations and systems to control their use, with armies of content controllers and artificial intelligence software. The platform has become responsible for what happens on its infrastructure. The free speech narrative is no longer tenable for companies like YouTube and Facebook. In fact, Facebook's new mantra is no longer freedom of expression, but transparency. It's normal for a platform to publish its own rules, and it's important for its users to understand that they are no longer simply media from which anyone can talk about what they want and how they want. These are companies that make choices, which may not yet be fully justified or transparent, but which users need to know about.

And that's exactly what the Zurich SVP failed to understand when its video was removed from YouTube because, according to the platform, it incited hatred. The clip's authors should have been aware of the rules, which stipulate that content must be contextualized and explained to the viewer, while avoiding staged scenes whose sole aim is to shock (looped images, disturbing music, etc.). Check out the video, which is still available on the Zurich SVP's Facebook page, and make up your own mind. Is this video intended to inform or shock its audience? Clearly, the entire production is not lacking in coherence and seeks, if not to shock, at least to frighten.

Is this censorship? Every media outlet must constantly make choices about what to publish and what not to publish. It doesn't publish everything, or at least not without offering a context prepared calmly and with the intention of educating. The SVP video looks more like an advertisement for a haunted castle or a horror film than a presentation of facts or political ideas. If the Zurich SVP no longer wishes to have its content removed, it should bear in mind that its aim is to convince, not to frighten. But it must also be mindful of the means by which it is disseminated, and of the fact that freedom of expression is not an absolute fundamental right. It can, for a multitude of reasons, be legally restricted. And by extension, a platform is not a neutral infrastructure over which no rules preside. Even Facebook and YouTube have understood this, so why shouldn't they?

Photo: YouTube