Matt Taibbi uses the term ‘Censorship -Industrial Complex’ to describe how the curtailment of freedom of speech and the encroachment of the Ministry of Truth on organisations is dominating the Western landscape. During the last week I was confronted again at the University of Helsinki by the same insidious machinations.
X was cancelled, the University was not going to use the platform.
The Director of Communications stated: “We don’t want to promote a conflict-seeking conversational culture, nor do we wish to expose our researchers to offensive behaviour through our own posts.”
At the same time DeepSeek was designated a threat because it was Chinese.
All the while, the University espouses the desire to have a diverse culture with critical thinking as an intrinsic attribute and be involved in the international community.
The censoring of X came as a top-down diktat, there was no discussion, no awareness of counter arguments. Linking the decision to adopt a conflict averse policy and wrap academics in cotton wool certainly has the basis for a Monty Python sketch, with academics writhing in an apoplexy of pain like the tantrums of a two year old when someone says boo.
And yet no one is talking about the dark side of Facebook, Telegram, Instagram, TikTok. There is no awareness of the incestuous relationship between state security agencies and these platforms, especially facebook. Or that Telegram was a primary conduit in stoking the UK riots – thanks Mr AG, (a Finn by the way). Or that Tik Tok encourages suicidal ideation (Amnesty, 2023). Whilst Instagram is spreading self-harm amongst teenagers (Guardian, 30.11.2024). And if X is a minor player, as those in the University propose, then why are they still using social media platforms that are juxtaposed with increasing levels of social toxicity that are more destructive than X (Tørmoen, 2023)?
So why does X attract such hypocritical approbation? Could it be an over bloated HR/Communications department that strives to find the latest trend to justify its existence?
Could it be that there is no critical thinking in the University because it has become subsumed below the moral rightousness of a small group of activist academics, who want to impose their identity reductionist world view and see the owner of X as the devil incarnate? If they are successful, will you be the next one in their crosshairs? Make a wrong gesture, say the wrong word and the stigmatisation ensues. This is Helsinki University, 2025.
Maybe the University places the political sensitivity of its staff above the self-harm of so many young people linked to more popular platforms. Yet these other platforms are not subject to the same level of indignation or scrutiny as X. The double standards are obvious, and the moral/ethical contradictions are disturbing.
I was labelled banal and even condemned as a ‘dude’ (but I took that as a compliment) when I questioned the censorship. I have in the past been called sämpylä, piece of wood, Billy Graham Wood and other depths of the vernacular. But with experience you discern the spiteful from the humorous, but humour and exposure to opposing narratives are disavowed in this age of identity politics, and certainly not encouraged in the University. So much for diversity.
It is the holier than thou ethos that infuses the ranks of those pushing this censorship agenda that merely underlines how divorced academia has moved from reality.
But the real pre-thought crime is warning that users should not use the Chinese low-cost AI innovation DeepSeek.
Were there pre-thought crime warnings attached to ChatGTP or other AI platforms? I did not see any and I attended workshops on the advent of AI, there were no warnings of pre-thought crimes.
Personally, I am a technological luddite, but trying to stop the advent of AI is like being Canute trying to control the sea. The proliferation of AI in student works is patently obvious and it is often not disclosed. There was no pre-crime warning about ChatGTP churning out lexis and discourse representing ideologically driven mantras coming from the cult of identity politics and Critical Race Theory. But here is a Chinese platform and the warnings dominate.
X and DeepSeek comply with the alleged objectives of increased diversity and internationalisation, and these platforms are only going to increase in popularity, yet they are censored. So much for internationalisation.
I could bring out the race card and advocate that the censoring of X and DeepSeek epitomises anti-American bias and anti-Chinese racism that is infecting European University campuses. I could drill down on the ideological indoctrination now being imposed in the University corridors that is leading to bad decision making processes and outcomes.
But I would rather call out the groupthink and sheer lack of common sense acumen that is presiding in those making the decisions. Clearly indoctrination has replaced managerial professionalism. Intriguingly, the decision to censor was announced on the University’s intranet and was supported by HR/IT specialists and activist academics who rallied in numbers to give a thumbs up. They even tried to control the words used in the posts online by giving more warnings on the principles of interaction that staff should adhere to.
To anyone with a scintilla of real-world experience it was a bit like an Amazon product review where all the company employees give rave reviews and false distortion ensues. They certainly made Orwell proud.
A unique proposal: Either ban all the social media platforms and thus invoke the equality the University religiously espouses or stop playing the deity of newspeak and bring a halt to differential treatment and strategies based on a fractious ideology.
By Graham Wood
Graham Wood has been a lecturer at the University of Helsinki for over thirty years. He gained his Executive MBA from Aalto and his PhD from the Faculty of Social Sciences at Helsinki University where he researched conflict and collective violence. He is also a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy in the UK.
This is a "Viewpoint" opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or position of The Helsinki Times. This column is not fact checked and HT is not be responsible for any possible inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.
HT
