IMDb: Another Eurocentric Safe Haven Masquerading as a Resourceful platform

Introduction:

Perhaps the basic evolutionary trajectory of human lifestyle is variably understood in the following manner: a so-called "stone-age", and in some cases, "nomadic" or "hunter-gatherer" sustenance, gives way to "sedentary", "agriculture" and/or "animal husbandry", and then to "community-building" or "urbanization", thereby possibly paving way for "social stratification" and "nation-building", which in turn may well have served as a basic ingredient for the flourishing of "cottage industry" and "trade", to be succeeded by "industrialization" and "commerce" (larger-scale trade). In that vein, it is commonly understood that "industrialization" has been followed by the "information/technology age", as another stage in human development. As it concerns this "information age", particularly with the coming of age of the internet, many "social" platforms of various stripes and self-professed functions have popped over the years.

As the "information age" matures, so does the plethora of "social media" grow in number. This, like any other undertaking by humans, comes with the good and the bad.
The connecting of people over a wide range of geography by "social media" is undeniable, thereby making the globe seem even smaller than what modern modes of machinery-transportation have impressed in our minds. This has meant that people have been able to organize a lot easier and much faster than ever before, both within and across national boundaries, for just about any cause that organizers and activists may feel strongly about, which can range from a host of issues dealing with workplace discontent to reaction towards the status of governance and possibly, a show of solidarity with the oppressed outside of one's own national boundary. It has also meant that people have a wider choice of information sourcing, as an alternative to state-controlled or corporate-controlled mass media such as those traditionally facilitated through television, radio and magazines/newspapers. This fairly liberal and giving nature of the internet is also the very thing that can unfortunately be destructive in other facets!

Discussion:

As the winding line of the introductory section hints, the internet can perhaps be viewed as the world's lone authentically "democratic" platform, cross-cutting geopolitical national boundaries. This makes it possible for people world over to communicate directly with one another in very short time spans and in ways which would otherwise not have been possible through physical interaction. Without it, many of us would have continued to be rendered silent and stay faceless and/or voiceless in the shadows, with no real or relatable outlet via the often state-controlled or corporate-controlled traditional media of television, radio or newspapers/magazines. Because ordinary people don't have much empirical control over these "traditional" forms of media, the managers of these media have often claimed to "speak for the masses" or else self-appoint themselves as figuratively "representing the mood of the masses", and in doing so, shape and/or manufacture "public consent".

Regular viewers or listeners of say, television or radio respectively, will be hard-pressed not to come across some talking-head or another who purports to be in possession of some undocumented "public consent" on some pressing matter, particularly when said matter is divisive or controversial in its very nature. These outlets are often littered with "guests" who come on to tell the viewer/listener that they have first-hand insight into what the viewer/listener is thinking, and what the viewer/listener personally consents to, even when there is no empirical evidence for the kind. Opinion polls are often not only misused, but are also deceptively applied so as to manufacture or mold consent that the viewer/listener may never have come around to making known to pollsters or data-collectors.

As an example, on many occasions, TV "guests"—as they are often called, cite some poll or another and thereupon make an overreaching claim that such a poll reflects the consent or opinion of an entire populace; what these "guests" fail to divulge however, if be-known to them at all, is that polls tangibly reflect opinions of ONLY those individuals who chose to participate in the polling event. Using a poll with a size of 10 or say, a 1000 opining volunteers, to make the overreaching claim that this reflects the consent of an "entire" populace is nothing short of reckless journalism. Those who excuse such shabby reporting often try to justify it by claiming that said reporting does not seek accuracy but merely to infer the "maximum statistical probability", supposedly in the guise of extrapolating poll results onto an entire population from sampling of rather limited size.

If not a big deal, and not tantamount to fudging of facts, why then not simply disclose the truth of the matter to viewers/listener, which is that the purported deductions are not to be taken at face value as being absolute in scope, as is often implied via reporting, and that the offered conclusions merely infer a probability-statistics which may or may not hold water, should an actual all-around population sampling ever take place? Such habitual misuse of sampling or polling has even managed to spill over to the internet, whereby corporate-controlled concerns have launched "online" arms of their concern/business. It's gotten to a point where even smaller players in academics have adopted such reporting antics. For instance, social media is replete with gossip about "entire" populations being this or that, just based off sampling done on 10, 50 or say, a 1000 or a few more individual volunteers.

It is this sort of branching-out of corporate-controlled media entities onto the internet, and subsequent spread of disinformation, where players like IMDb (aka Internet Movie Database) come in. IMDb, to use it as a pristine example, purports to be a resourceful platform suitable for all users, where objectivity is put front and center; in fact however, IMDb has matured into nothing more than another propaganda-mill for Eurocentric partisanship and/or "white' nationalism. The following encounters may serve as examples of this observation, as it relates to the flack that a 2014 Ridley Scott picture by the title of "Exodus: Gods and Kings" had gotten for its casting choices, for instance. On a page dedicated to this very film, IMDb has effortlessly published a user post which notes as follows:

This movie has suffered from claims of Hollywood whitewashing of non-white characters. Interestingly, this same claim has never been directed at portrayals of Jesus Christ who, while being an ethnic Jew, who would've been of Middle Eastern complexion, is always played by actors of European descent, perpetuating a myth begun by early Christian art. These artists believed that by portraying Christ in a likeness familiar to the local population He would more easily attract followers to the faith. [1]

While another user notes as follows:

The casting of European actors may not be as historically inaccurate as some have claimed. Northern Africa is separated from the rest of the continent by the Sahara Desert. As a result, those nations have more in common culturally with the Middle East and Europe than with Africa. One early race of Pharaohs was the Hyksos who, like the Jews, were a Semitic people. The Ptolemaic line of Pharoahs, which included Cleopatra, were of Macedonian descent. Both regions have inhabitants noted for their lightness of skin. [1]

Keep in mind that as part of its self-proclaimed "policy", IMDb notes that "Your opinions" are among the "sort of things" which "might not be accepted", stating as follows:

Please do not include personal opinions and try not to use subjective descriptions ("in this great movie...", "Chaplin's superbly comic performance...", etc). [1]

Especially regarding the last user cited above, the post is glaringly rich with few else but "personal opinions". Claiming, for instance, that "the casting of European actors may not be as historically inaccurate as some have claimed" suggests that "Europeans" are "interchangeable" with ancient Egyptian natives; what substantively-equipped research posits the peopling of the lower confines of the Nile water complex from Europe? Now of course, the noted user does not even justify that troubled claim with a traceable research provenance, but that "Northern Africa is separated from the rest of the continent by the Sahara Desert".

Putting aside the fact that the above claim does not logically follow from the preceding idea—concerning the "logical casting" of "Europeans"—it was supposed to be corroborating, nothing in prehistory/history suggests that the Sahara desert has prevented migration and/or trade from north-to-south or vice-versa; so that has to be a "personal opinion". The "result" which the user posits thereafter is henceforth predicated on a phantom premise. Did IMDb handlers have the intellectual drive to question the rationality of any of these user claims? The answer is a resounding 'no'.

The user appears to have been bold enough to perceive a 'barrier" quality in the Sahara desert, but not equally conscious enough to see one in a vast-enough water body (namely the Mediterranean sea) separating two major landmasses. Furthermore, the user goes onto supply another unsupported idea supposedly to buttress his/her unsupported principal premise concerning the "Europeans", noting that "One early race of Pharaohs was the Hyksos who, like the Jews, were a Semitic people." Many theories have been floating around the internet for years regarding the identity of the Hyksos, but nothing convincingly conclusive has surfaced other than the very real fact that the academia of Egyptology still knows very little about the identity of the Hyksos, let alone any authentication of their being "Semitic" speakers. Does this paucity in corroboration bother IMDb's handlers, who self-proclaim to care for only facts? Apparently not!

The user then indulges into what can only be described as a desperate maneuver: using the "Ptolemic" monarchy as an authentication item of note. With that logic, why not throw in the Romans, the British, the Turks or the Arabs as "authentic Egyptians" and/or "authentic Africans" for that matter, merely for the fact that they all ruled in the region at one point or another. Along those lines, why not equally authenticate the British in Nigeria as "Nigerians"? As silly as this track of thinking may be, the handlers of IMDb seem to have embraced it wholeheartedly in this occasion.

Finally, the user closes his/her post with a reference to "lightness of skin"; what exactly does "lightness" mean? There are Nigerians for instance, South African Bantu and KhoiSan speakers, and various eastern Africans noted for "their lightness of skin" [1]; should they all not be eligible to be "convincingly" played by Europeans who—in the main—are noted for their characteristically melanin-deficient skins?

Now, contrast the unconcerned, inviting and even cordial etiquette of IMDb's handlers to the unquestionably "opinionated" and unsourced user-post dissected above, which was apparently published as a "legitimate" trivia material, to that greeted upon the following:

As has become customery, director Ridley Scott naturally justifies his casting choices on "economic viability" at the expense of pursuing historical accuracy. Most who have watched Hollywood movies to a good degree will be hardpressed not to be mindful of the industry custom of employing actors of European heritage in the portrayal of just about any ethnic group that walks on the face of the planet, no matter how awkward it may be, from Native Americans to the infamous "black-face" caricatures of people of African heritage, not sparing people of the Gulf, south or southeast and/or Pacific Asian heritage. Saying that the so-called Hyksos, the Macedonians, or the Romans for that matter, have appointed themselves as pharaohs of the land at some point in history renders aboriginals of northern Africa more culturally akin to Europeans than they are to the remainder of Africa, is like saying that Spanish peninsula societies have more culturally in common with Africans than they do with the remainder of Europe, given how that region was once ruled by "Moors" from Africa, or saying that Nigerians have more in common with Europeans than they do with the remainder of Africa, since the British had once ruled over territory thereof. What core ancient Egyptian culture can possibly be misconstrued for European, pray tell? If anything, ancient Greeks borrowed more heavily from the ancient Egyptians than the other way around. On other matters, Ancient Egyptian art reliefs consistently distinguished Egyptians as generally dark complexioned people in contrast to some of the groups claimed to have come from territory west of Egypt, or the so-called Asiatics to their east, or even the rare depiction of Roman captives that have come to light; classical Greek accounts seem to further affirm this trend. Of course, none of this will distract the likes of Hollywood to push forward their most cherished fantasies or their desire to please their audiences of European heritage first and foremost! - dated to Oct 17, 2018. [1]

How was the piece above, which is clearly a more factually sober and far less opinionated submission than the preceding user-post, greeted by IMDb's handlers, one might ponder. Well, as a reasonably objective observer might have guessed, it was panned for publication! If there was any anticipation on how IMDb intelligently explained the reasoning behind this rejection, then it would be one of wasted time, because none was provided whatsoever! Who knows: maybe it was too lengthy of a material to serve as "trivia", or maybe IMDb's handlers saw some as-yet-to-be identified grammatical inadequacies about the composition of the piece; its anyone's guess, and up for grabs as to what struck IMDb's handlers as the "offending" property of the submission. Nonetheless, an extensively reworked variant of the post above —now furnished with more searchable "Egyptology" key lexicon items, and in some instances, referential archaeological exploits inserted—was thereafter submitted to IMDb, presumably to mitigate the unexplained "offending" property, and this is how it went:

Few things to note about the movie: - It basically parodies U.S. history in typical "Old Hollywood" fashion, whereby the European/"white" cast entirely makes up the "Egyptians" as "masters" while the "black" cast is relegated to non-Jewish servants/lackeys or fringe elements. This has been justified with the overused "economic viability" cliché at the expense of historical accuracy. - Actual Egyptian literary and artistic accounts contrast the movie's casting; for instance, their artwork generally convey Egyptians as more melanated than certain nationalities from neighboring land, like the "Tammahou" to their west and "Aamu/Asiatics" to their east. This extends to helmet-wearing Roman captives featured in a rare Meroitic fresco, adopting Egyptian conventions. Furthermore, far from being slaves or the like, so-called Nubians are often conveyed as either extensions of Egyptian military and/or potent enemies. The Egyptians employed the same conventions as other African cultures in depicting African groups in dual contrasting tones of "reddish-brown" vs "black"; yet such occasion has been seized on by the misinformed to mean "racial" distinction. - The likes of Hyksos, Persians or Romans are often exploited to make apologetics for Hollywood casting choices like those in this movie; however, these social elements were no more extensions of aboriginal Egyptian populace than the "Moors" were of the Spanish or the British of east Indians. - dated to Oct 23, 2018. [1]

The response of IMDb's handlers to the above? It was as deafening as it was in the last case. Still, undeterred by this seemingly inexplicable state of affairs, yet another piece was issued to IMDb, but this time with a sharply shorter content AND a specifically-named SINGULAR source, one which could easily be looked up on IMDb's very own website! It even goes right down to adhering to IMDb's demand that "trivia" must include the following, where reference to movie titles and person names were concerned; take a look:

"If you mention a person or a title (movie, TV series/ episode) that is also listed on IMDb, you must use the [link=title number or person number] to automatically create a hyperlink to the relevant page. (Please do not use any HTML coding - it won't work.)" - by IMDb [1]

Furthermore, the content of this latest submission was framed in a manner which does not constitute a "Rumor" [1], something else which IMDb claims to reject. Cutting back on the suspense, this is how the newly proposed "trivia" item went:

This movie was famously mentioned in HBO's "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Abortion Laws (2016)" [with the title referenced in the form of the required hyperlink] in a segment dealing with "Hollywood whitewashing of movie roles," which discusses Hollywood's history of using white/European actors in portraying non-white people. In the segment, John Oliver [with the person's name referenced in the form of the required hyperlink] asks "How is THIS Still a THING?" Note: The abovementioned should be understood as a reference to this movie's mention in a "well-known" HBO show!- dated to Feb 21, 2019.

To ensure that IMDb handlers' implicit reading challenges—as inferred from a previous IMDb-issued response—were not going to interfere with the publication-prospect of the submission above, the piece noticeably features a post-scripted "notice" of some sort of a disclaimer in order to emphasize the post's intended objective in only directly "citing" the HBO source involved, barring additional/external inferences made by the authorship; the decision to include this "note" was made, precisely because an earlier submission (dated to Feb 18, 2019) of the very same piece, without an attached disclaimer notice, was evidently misinterpreted by IMDb's handlers, or so it appeared! Unlike the case of the first two aforementioned—i.e. the more long-winded—submissions, however, this time around IMDb's handlers had the common courtesy of providing some semblance of an explanation for their supposed decision to not publish the rule-adhering shortened submission, as laid out above. Their response went like this:

"! Declined (1)" [1], adding that the submission provided "Not enough evidence." [1] Furthermore, "Your contribution has been declined. We have been unable to verify your contribution. Unfortunately we were unable to verify the information provided" [1]. With this kind of reasoning, one has to wonder whether IMDb's handlers are feigning stupidity, or merely unaware of IMDb's own self-professed rules. Either scenario does not bode well for IMDb. What on earth, is there to "verify" about "citing" a "well-known" [1] SINGULAR source, which itself can easily be located in IMDb's very own "database" by any observer equipped with some semblance of a functioning brain?

The HBO source involved is itself listed on IMDb's database. As noted, no external or supplementary inferences were made inside the submitted post about this source by the authorship, which would possibly necessitate verification! IMDb's own "help site" says:

"We're happy to accept items along the lines of "This movie was voted #3 in Such-and-Such's Top 1000 Movies poll", as long as its a list compiled by a major website, publication or TV show." - by IMDb [1]

Well, this submission clearly falls along the lines of "a list of movies" compiled by "a major website, publication or TV show" [1], for a designated subject matter, which in this case, happens to be "Hollywood whitewashing of movie roles" [2]. "Could it ever be the answer to a question on a TV quiz show?"[1] Absolutely! Can the submission be misconstrued as a "rumor" [1]? The answer is a resounding "no".  Can the submission be verified? Again, yes, since the source named in the submission is located in IMDb's very own database, AND is even readily traceable via the corresponding hyperlinks which were furnished in the submission itself, in direct accordance to IMDb's very own standards!

It is therefore perplexing as to precisely what IMDb's handlers are requesting for "evidence"; one might ponder whether they expect the submitter of the cited HBO source to vicariously substantiate its content, which was otherwise presented as merely a "trivia" of an event related to the movie title in question as opposed to a discussion about a source's pros or cons. This being presented as a trivia, one would instead expect IMDb to take up their anxieties about a supposed "evidence" with the HBO source's intellectual proprietor—namely John Oliver—themselves!  On the other hand, are IMDb's handlers asking for "evidence" that the event—the already aired HBO program—actually took place? This would be a reckless request, as already mentioned, because IMDb's very own database lists this very event!

Not that it matters on this occasion, but the HBO source itself effortlessly lists the movies by showing clips extracted from them as apparent "evidence" of "Hollywood whitewashing of movies roles" [2]; what more "evidence" can one ask for than a series of actual movie clips, one might ask. Furthermore, anyone who has any remote intuition into Hollywood's history will also learn of its undebatable record of "whitewashing of movie roles"! The industry is replete with examples of "white"/European actors playing non-European people of color, including in disparaging caricatures; it is mind-boggling that IMDb feels any need for "evidence" of this, given the nature of the business it self-professes to be in, namely the facilitation of a database of movies, which mostly happens to be Hollywood outputs.

The only logical deduction to take from the cited examples of IMDb's sharply contrasting reactions to two different user-submissions is that IMDb is serving as a partial party. IMDb has assumed the role of yet another safe-haven and breeding ground for "white" nationalism, which is evidently on the rise, even though its handlers will doubtlessly protest such characterization, as the accused often do. This development is by no means unique to IMDb, for other internet and social media platforms have succumbed to such nationalistic tendencies. Facebook for example, for all its purported utilitarianism of "connecting people across the globe", has gotten flack for hosting unsubstantiated "news" items and information, alongside the providing of a safe breeding ground for fanatic elements like "white" nationalism [3, 4, 5, 6]. Yet in the same vein as IMDb, Facebook disavows of facilitating the spread of what has become commonly termed as "fake news", which itself has grown into something of a loaded word—sometimes of purely political calculations—depending on the user, and facilitating a lifeline for the exemplified nationalistic-zealots. One source notes for example:

“By attempting to distinguish white supremacy from white nationalism and white separatism, Facebook ignores centuries of history, legal precedent, and expert scholarship that all establish that white nationalism and white separatism are white supremacy,” the letter states (emphasis theirs.) “Indeed, when we met with your company this summer, both our staff as well as the staff at Facebook, were unable to identify an example of white nationalism or white separatism that was not white supremacist." - Motherboard [3]

Adding:

After Charlottesville, in which a white supremacist killed counter-protester Heather Heyer and assaulted DeAndre Harris [source's hyperlinked emphasis] and others in August 2017, Facebook sought to internally clarify its policies on white supremacy, according to leaked documents Motherboard previously obtained [source's hyperlinked emphasis]. Facebook reiterated which groups it bars from the site, and its hate speech policies specifically as they are to be enforced in America. Those include banning praise, support, and representation of white supremacy, but allowing the same sort of positions for white nationalism and separatism, according to the leaked documents. - [3]

In addition to the problem above which is plaguing Facebook, another source points out:

The social media giant is not the only tech firm to have apologised for offensive content on its platform.

On Friday, Twitter said it was sorry after the term "Kill all Jews" briefly featured on the site's "trending" section (source's own hyperlinked emphasis)  for users in New York.

The phrase was being discussed as it had been scrawled on the walls on a Brooklyn synagogue that was set to host a political talk with Jewish TV star Ilana Glazer. - [4]

As internet social media platforms grapple with these issues, traditional media "news" outlets and "talk show" programs via television or radio have not fared better. For instance, while many fairly-known or major "news" organizations in the "west" often call out "news" apparatuses in other parts of the world as being either "mouthpieces" of totalitarian ruling classes or "not being free", many of these same accusing "news" outfits have themselves often doubled as propaganda mills for the geopolitical interests of both their corresponding local financial and ruling classes, in addition to common geopolitical designs of "bloc" geopolitical alignments of nations in the "west". This has far too often presented a recipe for disinformation by way of omission, outright dissemination or repetition of false information, alongside an industrious practice of shaping or fabricating public consent via non-existing or dubious research!


*Subject to revision or modification as made necessary by changing informational developments.
____________________________________________________________
 *References:

[1]: IMDb.com (publication or email correspondence)

[2]: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver; Abortion Laws; season 3, episode 2.

[3]: Facebook Is Reviewing its Policy on White Nationalism After Motherboard Investigation, Civil Rights Backlash - by Joseph Cox and Jason Koebler, Motherboard website, Sep 20, 2018.

[4]: Facebook sorry for 'white supremacist ad', by Joe Miller, BBC.com, Nov 3, 2018.

[5]: White nationalists welcome on Facebook, according to leaked internal policies -  by The Independent, UK website.

[6]: Jason Koebler's (Motherboard Editor-in-chief) interview with MSNBCs Ali Velshi.