This series questions and complicates what ‘reporting from abroad’ can mean in a globalized world that faces interconnected and local crises alongside forces grappling with how to liberate our beings from oppressive structures rooted in past and present (neo)colonialism and imperialism. We can take this as a chance to collectively and constructively consider both broader and different conceptions of philosophy than those more widely studied within USA institutions and culture—and the conditions that shape such studies around the globe by APA-related thinkers. We can learn how local institutions and global contexts shape the possibilities of research, speech, and our visions of philosophy.
Maryellen Stohlman-Vanderveen is a current MSc candidate in Philosophy and Public Policy at the London School of Economics and the Research and Diversity/Inclusiveness Editor at the Blog. Prior to studying at LSE, she completed a two-year Morningside College Junior Fellowship at the Chinese University of Hong Kong where she taught introductory ethics and service-learning courses. Maryellen’s past research includes work on David Hume’s views on polygamy and an ameliorative project targeting romantic jealousy as it relates to popular notions of jealousy as being necessary to romantic love. She is also interested in responsible technology policy, and her current dissertation investigates social media companies’ responsibilities pertaining to the spreading of misinformation by political leaders.
Please describe the research that is your primary area while in or reason for being at LSE.
My current research is still early in development: broadly, I am interested in whether social media companies have a special responsibility to monitor political leaders’ speech when it violates democratic norms. This primarily means speech that spreads misinformation that targets a specific person or group of people, or speech which undermines essential political processes such as elections or the peaceful transfer of power. This work was inspired by a paper by Robert Mark Simpson and Amia Srinivasan in which they argue for universities’ right to de-platform speakers whose speech would violate academic norms, such as academic freedom, or essential axioms of particular disciplines.
While social media companies should have the power to de-platform speakers by suspending or banning their accounts, this power should only be exercised in extreme circumstances, such as when a user’s speech incites violence. There are also a variety of less severe mechanisms that can be used to combat speech that violates democratic norms. These include removal, de-prioritization, making the content unsearchable, and/or including a warning label with links to factual information. The appropriateness of different moderation measures depends on the nature of speech and the reach of the user’s account. For example, following the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, there was widespread misinformation about the nature of his relationship to the attacker. It may be better to de-prioritize social media posts that spread this false narrative and include a warning label with a link to factual information rather than remove the content altogether. De-prioritizing the content would help prevent the narrative from further spreading, while the redirection to factual information can combat the false narrative (which was also being shared by far-right news sources at the time).
I believe there is a strong case to be made that social media companies have a greater responsibility to take such measures, but also that such content moderation decisions should not be made exclusively by the corporation or its CEO (the recent controversy surrounding Elon Musk and Twitter supports the need for more public discussion and agreement on principles for content moderation). Many social media companies already utilize third-party groups to help with content moderation—the creation of a publicly-funded independent organization to oversee this would benefit the public as well as corporations.
Who is your intended research audience and what type of output do you intend to create (for example: one or a series of articles, a new course, contributing to a ‘real world’ project, a book, the development of a centre)? How does being in England affect your process and output?
Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and his subsequent handling of content moderation on the platform illustrate the need for more robust and enforceable moderation guidelines. Musk’s handling of content moderation has been inconsistent, threatening the viability of a platform that has played a crucial role in social movements around the world. While my current work is intended for a limited audience (primarily my dissertation readers), I am considering joining a think tank or consulting firm after graduation. I am hopeful that my work may one day inform technology policy or content moderation practices.
How did you come to be doing research at LSE, whether happenstance, long-term goal, or a quick vital decision, for example?
While I love teaching, I came to LSE because I knew that I did not intend to pursue a career in academia. The precarity of the job market and concerns about the time investment of a PhD were big factors in this. The ongoing University and College Union strikes and refusal of UK universities to provide adequate working conditions, secure contracts, and fair compensation to employees have further reinforced my decision.
When applying to master’s programs, I appreciated that LSE’s Philosophy and Public Policy Program focused on philosophy’s applications to ‘real-world’ policy questions and their solutions, enabling me to continue studying philosophy while building skills that I can market in the search for non-academic jobs. The course’s focus on both European and American policy was particularly appealing to me. Although the United Kingdom is no longer a part of the EU, and so no longer necessarily subject to EU agreements on technology policy, both have more robust technology regulations than the United States. Their policies provide an interesting contrast to those of the US, and I am fascinated by how different societal values influence decisions in policymaking as well as public attitudes towards these decisions.
My interest in this topic developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. When the pandemic started, I was living in the Czech Republic. I returned briefly to the United States then moved to Hong Kong in the summer of 2020 where I lived until this past summer. I observed a stark difference in general public attitudes towards COVID-19 restrictions between Hong Kong and the United States, with Hong Kongers being generally much more willing to accept government-imposed restrictions such as mandatory masking, limitations on business operations, and travel restrictions. Of course, this changed as restrictions persisted and many in Hong Kong came to see the continued restrictions as a prioritization of Hong Kong’s relationship with Mainland China over its economic ties with the rest of the world.
This experience prompted me to reflect more deeply on the many factors, including political and cultural forces, that influence the development of policies. We can see these forces play out in policies surrounding content moderation on social media platforms, with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act illustrating the United States’ belief in free speech and protection for corporations. In contrast, Europe’s recently passed Digital Securities Act explicitly holds companies responsible for content published on their platform. This act does not go into effect until 2024 but is likely to have huge repercussions for how social media companies respond to flagged content.
What interdisciplinary overlap and tools are involved in your course at LSE? What is the disciplinary layout at LSE and how does that affect your work or compare to the USA, Hong Kong, and the Czech Republic?
Comparing my experience studying and researching in the United States at Smith College against my same experience at the London School of Economics and my time working and conducting pedagogical research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, I have found that interdisciplinary overlap and collaboration is much more common at institutions in the United States and at liberal arts institutions in particular. That isn’t to say that it does not occur elsewhere, but rather that the American liberal arts system purposefully builds interdisciplinary collaboration into the student and research experience, such as through curriculum distribution requirements and research initiatives designed to bring together collaborators from various disciplines.
That my program combines philosophy and public policy is pretty unique for the London School of Economics; however, the institutional setup makes enrolling in classes outside the philosophy department difficult. Despite the program’s dual focus, it is often difficult for students to get a spot in courses run by the university’s various policy departments. This is largely due to limitations on course spaces and so, it may also be a feature of the university’s size and limitations on teaching resources rather than a de-emphasis of interdisciplinary studies.
What insights or new tools would you be excited to share with the APA community from your experience?
Being in London has been a great opportunity to make connections with UK-based philosophers! There is so much interesting philosophy happening ‘across the pond.’ Going into this spring, I hope to showcase more of the work that APA-affiliated philosophers are doing while at UK institutions. The Blog is currently working on further developing our partnership with The Philosopher, a British public philosophy journal that has been publishing since 1923. They host some great virtual public events and we’re looking forward to highlighting these for the APA audience in the upcoming year.
What support or resources have enabled you to study and teach philosophy around the world? How did you find and pursue these opportunities? Did you receive any training or support for this? What impact will they have on your work?
I’ve been very fortunate to benefit from two fellowship programs that enabled me to live and work abroad and prepared me for my current program. The first is the Fulbright Fellowship program which enabled me to teach English in the Czech Republic. I owe this experience to Smith College’s Fellowship & Postgraduate Scholarships Office and Don Andrews, its lead advisor at the time. The office offered me a ton of support throughout the application process. My academic advisors at Smith College—Jeffry Ramsey and Jill de Villiers—also deserve a huge thanks for encouraging me to apply, offering feedback on my applications, and writing my recommendations. While this opportunity was challenging, living in a small, rural community taught me a lot about myself and the steps I can take to function at my best in a new environment. This has been invaluable in transitioning to a new graduate program and adjusting to life in the UK while maintaining personal well-being.
My experiences in the Czech also reinforced how much we have to learn from one another, especially those of previous generations. Some of my colleagues in the Czech had grown up during the country’s Communist era, which ended only in 1989. They had experienced living under two vastly different forms of government and witnessed the challenges that communism and democracy each bring. While my colleagues and I did not always see eye to eye on social or political issues, this was ultimately an opportunity for deeper conversation and reflection on why we hold particular views. Understanding how people’s individual experiences informed their political attitudes enabled me to reflect more on my own reasons for my beliefs, and better appreciate others’ reasoning for theirs. Having attended a pretty politically homogeneous liberal arts college, this was a really important lesson for grappling with the increasing political division in the United States.
The second is the Morningside Junior Fellowship program at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Not only did living in Hong Kong during the pandemic spark my interest in interactions between cultural values and policy, but this position also gave me independence to pursue my own pedagogical research and other projects. This experience has been hugely helpful for my current graduate program, as the UK system requires much more independent learning than I was accustomed to in the US.
These two experiences and my whole philosophical education will continue to impact my life and work. I believe that philosophy has given me much deeper and more robust means for understanding the world than I would have otherwise developed had I chosen a different academic path. I plan to always study philosophy, even if informally, and I hope to stay actively involved with public philosophy and the APA Blog as I move on to the next chapter in my life.
What research being done ‘across the pond’ in particular excites you?
Recently, I’ve been excited by the work of one of my professors at LSE, Jonathan Birch. He has written extensively on issues relating to animal welfare and sentience and currently runs the Foundations of Animal Sentience (ASENT) project. He and his colleagues recently testified in front of the House of Common’s Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs Committee and were crucial to the expansion of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act to include decapod crustaceans (like crabs and lobsters) and cephalopods (like octopuses and cuttlefish). The questions they research relate to animal sentience, such as what sort of behaviors provide evidence for sentience, how many of these behaviors an animal should have to exhibit to count as legally sentient, and what ethical demands legal sentience places on us and our welfare laws. These questions are fascinating and I think their work on the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act is a great example of how philosophers can have an impact outside of academia.
Maryellen Stohlman-Vanderveen is the APA Blog's Diversity and Inclusion Editor and Research Editor. She graduated from the London School of Economics with an MSc in Philosophy and Public Policy in 2023 and currently works in strategic communications. Her philosophical interests include conceptual engineering, normative ethics, philosophy of technology, and how to live a good life.
alicehank winham studied BA Philosophy and Theology at Blackfriars Hall, University of Oxford, where ze is now pursuing an MPhil Buddhist Studies at Lady Margaret Hall through the Faculty of Oriental Studies soon to be renamed the ‘Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies.’ Ze focuses on philosophy of logic and language and social epistemology across traditions, including classical Buddhist philosophy and its modern interpreters, feminist philosophy, and the Black Radical Tradition. alicehank is also dedicated to critical pedagogy, philosophies of transformation and liberation, and social and environmental activism, such as through mentoring programmes, publishing journals, and direct action. In philosophy, ze works on expanding our disciplinary and interpretative horizons for a more caring and considered world through oxfordpublicphilosophy.com and Philiminality Oxford. Ze also works to reflect and act upon zer values through Biblionasium, environmental activism, and Lift Economy’s Next Economy MBA.
Woot woot! Thanks, alicehank! Thanks, Maryellen!
Maryellen, Have you been doing work on how the form of social media platforms lends itself to being a springboard for indirectly coercive speech? One of the things that struck me the first time I encountered Rancière’s work — skeptically at first, because it felt so damn trendy and elite (and I was mistaken about that last bit) — is how the notion of an “aesthetic regime” lays the internet bare as a social form. And this social form is thin for the most part, very thin and relationally impoverished. But explaining how is not easy. In any case, the combination of its thinness on major social media platforms with the elite control of those platforms interests me. It seems just as important as the question of what can be said and what not “in the room.”
Just a thought.
Thanks for the shout out to the Philosopher! We’re working on it.
Thanks, Jeremy – I hadn’t been thinking about coercive speech but I will definitely add Rancière’s work to my reading list!