It's all about . . . the man

Photo: Contributed

You remember the phrase 'stick it to the man'?

Well, on Monday this week, we did. More correctly, ‘they’ stuck it to the man. It is difficult enough in this world to define who ‘the man’ is, but sometimes even more challenging to define who ‘they’ are.

‘Sticking it to the man’ usually refers to an act of disobedience, a breaking of the rules. In fairness, nobody truly knows what ‘stick it to the man’ means. I looked at various definitions online, and the consensus is that there is no consensus. Generally, though, we use the saying to make a statement about power or regulations that are over-controlling. 

The fear we harbour was clearly articulated in George Orwell’s 1984 - a classic book that most school children have the opportunity to read, dissect and discuss.

It used to be the government that everyone believed was the over-controlling, zealous, and manipulative Big Brother (the man). Perhaps Stephen Harper was considered to be ‘the man’, and so on Monday, the powerful message was delivered. 

But was he the man? Who is really the man?

In opposition to ‘the man’, the internet has flourished. Google espoused terms like ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘protection of privacy’. We all rushed there, because Google was not ‘the man’ - it was the very antithesis of ‘the man’.

For a long time we were very comfortable there. Then something strange happened.

Google became ‘the man’. 

In order to protect its users, Google - and others - developed a set of very legalistic guidelines, which people never really read, but agree to. 

I always thought rules and regulations went against the grain.

Then Google realized that it could control a lot of data from users. Pretty soon, they became very large, and, in an attempt to ‘stick it to the man’, became the man. 

This week, I had a YouTube account shut down by Google for ‘perceived violations of community guidelines’. I did some research, and was astounded to see how many others had experienced the same arbitrary accuser/judge and jury scenario. 

One woman had amassed a channel of over 400 videos of her dog training activities. Google (now the man) shut her down with no warning or explanation, completely cutting off her right to free speech. Hmmm, sounds familiar.

More so, they had likely exploited her for years by selling advertising through her popular videos, and had made money by selling the vast amounts of data they had amassed from her in many virtual and surreptitious ways.

Thankfully, the woman appealed to the accuser, judge and jury. and had her account restated. 

I took a leaf out of her book and appealed, and successfully had my account reinstated as well. 

The whole process makes me wonder, though, how the saviour of our rights to freedom of speech and protection of privacy became, somewhere along the way, ‘the man’.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.