It’s no secret that digital inequity has been a big problem throughout the history of the internet. Social spaces online have always given the worst of society the ability to spread hatred and bigotry while hidden behind the mask of an anonymous profile picture. While that has been an aspect of the internet well-known and even joked about for a long time (see any Call of Duty lobby voice-chat montage from the 2000s), it has never been easier or more seemingly acceptable to spread hate online, enabled by the anonymity of fake accounts. In this reflection, I looked specifically at how oppression is reinforced through the internet, specifically by using the four I’s mentioned in Maha Bali’s conversation.
Applying the 4 I’s of oppression shown in this video to the general online culture, we can see how the decrease of social media platforms’ deterrents and the increase of hateful content are inexplicably linked together. The first I, Ideological, focuses on the belief that aspects of the group in power are positive and that aspects of other groups are negative. Ideas like this would include black people being violent, or that everyone with lots of money always worked hard for it. These are ideas that either lack evidence or have proof that ignores why it may be unreliable. For example, black neighbourhoods are often more patrolled than white neighbourhoods, explaining why more crimes are caught or made up in those neighbourhoods in spite of how similar the criminal activity of those two neighbourhoods. This is why averages are useless, as they rarely accurately reflect what the average person in any minority group actually does. These ideas aren’t just localized to the actions we do in real life, as bigotry can be expressed online as well with people just “expressing their free speech” while actively trying to create harmful ideas protected under “free speech.” That free speech also applies to online conduct, meaning that anyone can actively look for a minority they disagree with and choose to harass them however they want with little to no real-world consequences, while also being able to listen to the “free speech” of hateful personalities and podcasts, further spreading the mental beliefs regarding minorities.
Institutional oppression, in comparison, are far more concrete instances of oppression, such as laws and the systems of society that a minority might have access to or be restricted from. While the original video cites examples such as medical access and legal rights, it also highlights institutional oppression in online spaces. While most websites and social platforms have some form of word-censoring algorithm to combat obvious slurs and degrading language, humans are smart creatures who can find multiple loopholes to get around deterrants. I personally use Instagram a lot as my main social media platform, and whenever racists want to insult a black creator without having their account suspended, it is common practice to simply post a comment that just has the ninja emoji and nothing else. Due to the similarity of how the words ninja and the black slur sound, racists have claimed the emoji as a symbol of hatred that they can use in any comment section without having the Instagram algorithm recognize the underlying meaning. While this is a situation hard for any social media platform to perfectly combat, it is upsetting that racists have such an easy way to spread their hate without consequence. The lack of restriction against such tactics allows ideas to be spread while having little to no resistance being brought against them.
Interpersonal oppression is the definition of stereotypes and acts of violence. In the real world, there are plenty of ways to spread violence and stereotypes onto minority groups. On the internet, though, it’s never been easier to be hateful and bigoted while having the protection of anonymity. Stereotypes, due to their vocal nature, are simply made easier to spread with the internet, with more voices equating to more spread of hateful beliefs. However, when it comes to violence in particular, many new tactics have been developed for violent acts that would be harder to do or replicate in real life. For example, one activity I want to focus on is the harassment technique known as “Swating.” Swating is the technique where after gaining knowledge of the current location of an online streamer, an individual calls the local police station and pretends to be the streamer as they say they will commit violent acts or have a bomb, anything to justify the police station committing to a raid of the streamer’s home, usually with a SWAT team that go into situations assuming the worst. This can lead to dangerous and deadly altercations between the police and the victim of the swatting, but more often than not, it acts as both an act of harassment and a threat to the streamer, as some people know where they live. While this occurs to streamers of all backgrounds, it is most commonly used against minority streamers or people with whom their audience politically disagrees. Since the swatter often uses some technical knowledge to obscure their identity to the police, it is hard to have any sort of justice brought to them, leading to more instances of Swating and other internet-specific violent acts occurring.
The final I of oppression is internalized. This is when an individual believes the bigoted perspective of their minority or identity. In the real world, this can be something like an immigrant being embarrassed by their accent, or a political person believing that they have to agree with every policy of their political party to be a real supporter. Through the internet, I view internalized oppression to occur the most through people making money and selling themselves as their stereotypes. Queer content creators play into their stereotypes of being loud and having bright and brash makeup, people struggling with mental health make fun of themselves and their troubles to create a connection with their audience, and black streamers celebrate milestones by replicating harmful stereotypes of themselves as a way to joke around. However, whether or not these content creators believe these stereotypes, the continued depiction of these oppressive beliefs can lead their audiences to internalize them, as their favourite content creator who is like them validates these behaviours. This creates a feedback loop where the I of ideology becomes validated, justifying the furthering of Institutional decisions, which then allows Interpersonal oppression to be protected and seen as the norm, the norm then being believed and Internalized.
Because of the looping nature, transformative change rather than in-the-moment change is necessary for meaningful improvements to society. Small, individual solutions simply push the problem onto someone else rather than addressing it as a whole. However, since oppression is usually enforced by groups in power, it is an uphill fight all the way up, as those in power rarely want the status quo to change if it currently benefits them to leave it alone. Given how long it will take to get these changes right, we need to be vigilant in combating the four I’s of oppression to protect those affected by them.