Andrey Ostalsky: Evils on Facebook

Harry Potter intervened in politics. Rather, politics burst into the cozy world of writer's fans Joan Rowling and split him into two hostile camps. In British social networks, a mortal battle ensued, in which, unlike a fabulous saga, it is not entirely obvious where the absolute good is, and where is evil. Where is the Dark Lord, the leader of the Death Death Eaters of Wlan de Mort, and where is the noble and human, who sacrifices the good magician Dumbledore in the name of the common good.

But on the eve of the fateful elections of the leader of the Labor Party, representatives of its left wing announced that they would definitely know the answers to these questions. The universal evil, according to their ideas, are conservatives, as well as all sorts of “bourgeois liberals”, but before all the moderate Labor, who make up the majority in the party’s parliamentary faction. And the highest embodiment of the good is the idol of Levakov, the party leader Jeremy Corbin , who is just Dumbledore of the political world, throwing an angry challenge.

So they began to call him on their blogs and tweets, especially since there was a certain external similarity. Both are pretty elderly uncles, both bearded and completely gray. Both characters - an invented and really existing - have supposedly a certain common good -natured and wise smiling squint.

But then Joan Rowling could not stand it, outraged by the usurpation of her literary hero. "Korbin is not Dumbledore!" She wrote on Twitter . Moreover, Rowling called on Korbin to leave politics, since his leadership leads de to the destruction of the Labor Party and only helps the conservatives to maintain power. In response, tons of evil insults, curses and threats fell upon her. One of the opponents expressed regret that there is no way to conclude people like Rowling, in the Gulag, thus confirming the fears of the centrists and liberals about the fact that, even being infinitely far from power, some of the extreme left already dreaming of camps for dissenters. "Satan", "dirty liberal", "sales scribble" is among the most harmless curses to the writer. Rowling noted that from the point of view of Corbinists, any person who does not share his love for the “great leader” is certainly corrupt, and also that the extreme left and extreme right are much in common, in particular, hatred of liberalism. She also received many messages of support and solidarity from fans who call not to pay attention to the haters.

You can argue about who is right in the intra -party conflict. Daniel Radcliffe, an actor who played Harry Potter in a movie, for example, joined the supporters of Corbin. But there is no doubt that the virtual battle, which unfolded around microblogs, Joan Rowling, clearly showed the terrible power of social networks. To think only, until recently, Harry Potter united everyone - the right, left -wing, and centrists, was a kind of public property. And there are very few such factors of national unity, except that football still does not know political razor. But the social networks in the instant of the eye destroyed this unity, so much so that the broken can no longer glue. Some especially zealous fans of Corbina say that it is not worth allowing children to read the Books "Traditional".

Conspiracy theories pave the way to power to populists and demagogues, threatening to destroy liberal democracy and true freedom of speech and thoughts

Recently published studies show that an increase in access to a broad -legged Internet and activity in social networks leads to more and more polarization and intolerance in American society. According to the measurements of scientists, the degree of segregation based on political disagreements in many cases exceeds racial. More and more supporters of the Democrats and Republicans object to their children are combined with marriages with the offspring of families supporting the "hostile" party. In 1960, five percent of the Americans declared unwillingness to intermariate with political opponents, in 2010 this figure reached 40 percent. In Britain, something similar is happening - young lalectors have become fashionable with t -shirts with the inscription: "I will never kiss the conservative!"

It turns out that the better access to the Internet, the more pronounced such trends become: liberals are increasingly considering conservatives not just mistaken people, but intellectually inferior. And vice versa, the right sees in their opponents moral and moral inferiority. Political views begin to determine the personality. The arguments of the other side, any facts and evidence are not only not accepted, but are also rejected as a deliberate lies if they contradict the views cultivated in the echo-frames of social networks.

It is unlikely that the situation is also significantly different in other Western countries. As for the authoritarian regimes, for them social networks become a powerful instrument of power, repeating and enhancing disinformation, prejudices, stereotypes imposed on the society by state media. The liberal minority is trying to protect against this stream with the walls of its own echo-camera, but to pull to their side, to convince the prisoners of state propaganda becomes almost impossible.

Another visual result of the increasingly massive effect of social networks is the rapid and mass distribution of all kinds of conspiracy theories. Western journalists, in real life, illuminated the blow of terrorists on the towers of the World Commercial Center in New York, who watched this event with their own eyes and interviewed many witnesses and relatives of the dead, come into despair from the growing popularity of the conspiracy version of this tragedy. This version is actively distributed by Facebook and Twitter users, repeating the falsely convincing theories that came from the Arab world, where the majority was immediately ready to blame the American and Israeli intelligence agencies of this crime. Any attempts to put forward counterarguments are rejected and declared evidence of the corruption of those who do not agree with the opinion dominant in social networks.

The theories of conspiracies pave the way to power to populists and demagogues, threatening to destroy liberal democracy and true freedom of speech and thought. It is known from history how it ends: Stalinism would not be possible without faith in the worldwide conspiracy of external and internal enemies against Soviet Russia, National Socialism-without the conviction of most Germans in a Jewish conspiracy against Germany.

Does this mean that social networks should be banned? Of course, no. Firstly, this is impossible. And secondly, enough and first. Some Western publicists urge to rebel against the “spiritual and intellectual squalor of populists”, their inability to argue on the merits, refusal to accept rational evidence, their boundless confidence in their own rightness and evil hunting for “traitors and heretics”. However, so far such calls look strange and inappropriate in social networks. For them, another tonality is stylistically organic: "Down!", "Fright and divide!", "Plant!" (and even "kill!"). The wishes of painful death to the descendants of a supporter of a different opinion is up to the third knee.

And calls for tolerance, a civilized dispute and mutual respect - truly a voice of a crying in the desert.

Andrey Ostalsky - London political commentator

Opinions expressed under the heading "Law" may not reflect the point of view of the editorial office