In the digital age the banning of books doesn’t require a statute or an overt political proclamation. Within a congruent social climate it is implemented as routine, via a corporate consensus which has no democratic oversight at all.
This has been the fate of my book, The Drug Users Bible, which presents important safety material to users across the world. It has been blocked and hidden by social media behemoths, banished from citation by Wikipedia, and directly banned from online advertising.
This article will examine some of the actual responses which its publication has provoked. Notwithstanding its encouraging sales figures and its global community of supporters, the nature of a number of these has been both irrational and disturbing.
In stating this, let there be no confusion: the book itself does not glorify or promote drugs. Whilst I self-administered 157 psychoactives for the project, risk mitigation is the first and last message, and guides its entirety. There can be absolutely no dispute about its authenticity as a dedicated harm reduction resource.
The issue of contention appears to be that its hands-on contents and its direct user-to-user dialogue run counter to the prevailing war on drugs narrative. It is unashamedly a drug book, written largely for the benefit of drug users.
This certainly rendered it to be considered edgy or controversial in some quarters, but the story began to take a more sinister direction when the publishers sought to initiate an online advertising campaign. Twitter was the first port of call.
TWITTER — SAFETY BOOKS ARE DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
In the context of drugs paraphernalia is an interesting word, not least because in some parts of the US its possession is illegal. It generally refers to equipment or some accessory that is intended for making, using, or concealing. The Department of Justice provides a helpful list of examples: pipes, water pipes, roach clips, miniature spoons, chillums, bongs, cigarette papers, and cocaine freebase kits.
Whilst this may seem to be ludicrous to most Europeans, people are actually being imprisoned for possession of these items.
Fortunately, books are not on the list. However, in Twitter’s domain it appears that they are. In rejecting the advert for The Drug Users Bible, it stated that:
“We’ve reviewed and confirmed the ineligibility decision for Twitter Ads based on our Drugs and Drug Paraphernalia policy. Violating content includes, but is not limited to, paraphernalia associated with drug use, illegal drugs and mind-altering substances, as well as facilities where drugs can be taken.”
This was issued following appeal, and after several attempts to advertise. It wasn’t an accident or the interpretation of a rogue support agent; it reflects Twitter’s position on a book which provides harm reduction and life-critical safety data.
REDDIT — SAFETY BOOKS ARE HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS
Here, the publishers sought to advertise the book on some of the drug specific subreddits (message boards): broadly speaking, directly to communities of drug users. Surely there could be no objection to this?
There was. The advert was rejected, this time in the following terms:
“This email is to inform you that your creative Test Campaign 9d has been rejected under campaign Test Campaign 9d for the following reason: II.3 Hazardous Products or Services
The ad submitted is in violation of our Ads Policy Section II.3 Hazardous Products or Services. Reddit does not allow this type of content to be promoted on our advertising platform.”
Again, the submission was made on a number of occasions to ensure that this wasn’t some form of aberration or error. It is Reddit’s position on a book which provides harm reduction and life-saving data.
FACEBOOK — SAFETY BOOKS BREACH COMMUNITY STANDARDS
On Facebook, in addition to the author account, a specific page was created for the book itself. Over time, this began to gain traction, and by April 2019, it had amassed some 495 followers.
Suddenly, the axe fell. Direct links to the book’s dedicated website were blocked, every post which contained such a link was unilaterally removed, and the Facebook page itself (including its contents) could no longer be shared. It was effectively placed in to quarantine.
The following message was helpfully displayed to anyone seeking to visit the website from Facebook:
“You can’t go to this link from Facebook. The link you tried to visit goes against our Community Standards”
In practical terms the book’s Facebook page was made redundant. No explanation or warning was given to the owner of the page or to myself as the author. To add insult to injury, all efforts to contact Facebook to discuss this were ignored.
Nor did it end there. For good measure, Instagram (owned by Facebook) completely disabled the book’s account: “Your account has been disabled for violating our terms”.
As with the other platforms, and again unambiguously, this reflects Facebook’s position on a book which provides harm reduction and life-critical safety data.
WIKIPEDIA — CENSORSHIP BY CITATION
The issue with Wikipedia is that substantive edits are generally supported by citation, and the list of acceptable citation sources is dominated by the mainstream. As such, its articles tend to reflect a bias towards mainstream opinion and media. This is a widely known problem.
In the case of The Drug Users Bible, edits began to appear on some of Wikipedia’s drug pages, citing it as source. For example, one particular article originally quoted a dose which was reckless , and was edited to reduce this to the safer and more sensible figure presented in the book.
Sooner rather than later a Wikipedia administrator noticed this, and apparently, that the book wasn’t published by a Penguin or a Pan Macmillan. Every citation across the entire platform was unceremoniously removed.
As a result, a number of Wikipedia drug articles still contain erroneous and potentially dangerous information, but at least the platform is now clean of citations to The Drug Users Bible.
IT’S FUNNY BUT IT ISN’T
In truth, it is unlikely that any of these enterprises actually purchased the book and examined its contents. Indeed, a number of other drug related groups and accounts have also been blocked and banned for spurious reasons, albeit not as patently ridiculous as some of those cited above.
The most likely scenario is that the word ‘drugs’ fired a cultural trigger, and a nameless arbiter pushed the reject-button based upon social conditioning to the subject matter; to anything that doesn’t follow the usual narrative of the war on drugs. However, that this decision survived appeal and complaint clearly indicates a corporate-wide consensus or policy with respect to this.
The not-so-funny side of it is that in this field ignorance costs lives, and these corporations have chosen to perpetuate it through censorship. Further, this appears to have occurred almost as routine.
FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE DRUG USERS
Harm reduction information, real data presented to save the lives of real people, has and is being censored. Whilst the direct consequences of this for drug users are obvious, the wider implications are equally stark: the most well known social media corporations are blocking public access to legal factual material, including in the form of published books.
That this is business as usual, being exercised without transparency or independent recourse, should concern every thinking person. We have been here before, and we ignore it at our peril.
