Also clever that you explored the difference between free speech and free reach.
I might argue that now political influence is much more important value to Musk than advertising. (He hardly wooed his advertisers when he acquired Twitter/X).
Trump’s tech bros’ advocacy for ‘free speech’ on the grounds that the traditional media system is suppressing ‘the truth’ is of course laughable, public awareness of the truth not generally being of the remotest interest to them.
The speech you would ban is subjective and gives us an easy and obvious place to start in fighting back against this censorship movement you are currently campaigning for, it is just so damaging for our society.
TOXIC masculinity, when was this phrase first used, who was it used by and for what purpose? Is there actually a non toxic masculinity in the minds of the people who say toxic masculinity?
Let’s say that Elon accusing Jess Philip’s of being a rape apologist is an obvious example and we ban it. Do we also ban Jess Phillips from accusing George Galloway of the same in 2015 on the same platform? Is it ok to say the words if you’re of the correct sex? Is Phillips guilty of inciting the verbal and physical attacks Galloway suffered around that time?
You defined toxic masculinity in a way that EVERYONE agreed with of course. It stands to reason that you now should now define and ban toxic femininity, while you’re at it you should ban narcissistic behaviour, that’s toxic, oh and food recipes that aren’t healthy that’s literally toxic.
These are old and obvious arguments (shame we have to keep making them really) but the evidence around us of the slippery slope is everywhere and you’d have be blind to ignore it. To call for mechanisms to be in place for states to have such control over individual expression is self harm.
Do you want Reform to have the levers to control public discourse around race after the next election? Then don’t create them.
Let’s hope that Trump doesn’t pressure the American social media, fund ngos and “rights” groups, charities or just demand censorship directly in emails from the white house the way the Biden administration did. You better really pray that he doesn’t bring in his very own version of speech laws like we have in the uk. Say goodbye to your opinion for sure if Toxic Masculinity definitions were written or amended by people who think your opinions better reflect the words. I’m not sure I’d totally disagree with them.
There is a much more important group with toxic ideologies that we need to ponder. They fight to preserve the moral bounds of society and are oblivious to the consequences of censorship which are literally the studied and stated path to the worst societies humans suffer under. You deny reality and have to create new terms that have undefinable meanings. It’s interesting to see the new “absolutist” moniker for people who are anti censorship. It’s reminiscent of the recent “denier” moniker that folks added to global warming sceptics it’s great propaganda repetition though, top marks. You should try to go professional.
We have not found out yet in Britain exactly how our state and wealthy elites use (you would say corrupt instead of use) our speech regulations to their advantage to control the narrative and keep their statuses BECAUSE we have a small, scared shitless of the consequences, independent Media and a highly “regulated” Broadcast and now, almost unbelievably in a free society, print media also.
It was hard fought to get the establishment control out of the uk for example the blasphemy laws that allowed the church hideous undemocratic power (Ireland also of course). We are a whisker away from Blasphemy’s new incarnations in the UK again and the Scott’s have already crossed over that bridge. This will not create the haven of religious tolerance that you might believe.
Free speech is bad, people can be whatever they want, they can choose to openly hold toxic “false beliefs” but it shouldn’t be regulated, your authoritarian opinions turned into law have destroyed all trust and created a paranoid
The internet is printing the court transcripts that our media chose not to, believably because they feared being incendiary, it’s always been in the broadcast regulations that they will get in a lot of trouble for that. I bet it’s no 1 in the new print media ones. The stifling heat of regulation and law around race and fear of radical Islam leads to the continued rape of thousands of children. Not in all cases, but in thousands. Apparently we are again to be told we are only allowed to have the conversation if we don’t use hurty words. Well it’s happening and not pretty but it is unfortunate for the girls we couldn’t have it at the time because it has facilitated action already that other campaigns had failed to produce the pressure for and if it keeps up we might even see some accountability for the first time from anyone in authority. Censorship was a root cause in these cases, further censorship will likely further facilitate the coverup and the continuation again.
Whether an authoritarian establishment stooge or a useful idiot (get the reference) your dangerous words and malinformation can and may be used by an authoritarian state to justify the further removal of power from its population to organise and express opinion against it and that sir is why your words are far more dangerous than trolls on the internet.
I still think you should have the right to express them even though I’m pretty sure that their propagation and acceptance if by the majority or their misuse by a powerful minority (as in now maybe) will be the end of our dream of living in a liberal democracy.
Sir, you seem to misunderstand what I’m saying and you seem to be putting ideas in my head and words in my mouth that just aren’t there.
Free speech is not in question. This is about free reach.
Maybe read it again.
It’s about the total deregulation of, and profiting from the propagation of hatred and lies.
Specifically I’m talking about Facebook’s policy change because Facebook, let’s face it, have tried this before and excited a genocide (see: Myanmar 2017) … only now they’re trying it in Trump’s America.
It’s a totally self-serving commercial move that with it brings harm.
We accept regulation in almost every walk of life — building, road safety, border control, banking etc — and particularly in relation to things we consume — drugs, medicine, food etc.
Media is food for the mind. It’s a cornerstone of who we believe we are.
So, however evil you want to think the scary people in Whitehall (or wherever) are … and just to be clear, I’ve zero interest in debating that with you … it is the case that total deregulation of social media — an addictive product that monetises fear and hatred above all else — is a dereliction of the duty of government.
You may disagree. If you do I think you’re wrong. But hey … we’re free to think how we like and say what we like because you know what: free speech isn’t at issue here after all.
If government regulated the distribution of “harmful” speech online it would so obviously be censorship. Are you just trolling? You think there’s a difference between controls at the distribution stage or later? You want your government to have control over legal speech distribution on the internet. That’s a statement of fact right? It’s worse even than banning because people won’t even know they are being censored. We have people arrested for posting because of our current speech laws. That’s a fact. Thousands a year, look it up. The laws you want will be abused in just the same way. That’s why we used to think expression was a right. Your battle for safety online is illiberal and a further slide if introduced into a nightmare authoritarian state.
You’re still confusing things … people being arrested for speech has nothing to do with regulating algorithms? If you can’t stay on track the conversation is pointless.
On the subject of speech: freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequence.
The application of law is all about the balance of what is reasonable and the conflict between different priorities. It doesn’t deal in absolutes. That’s how it always has and always will work, as is correct. You can keep advocating for absolutes but it’s a fantasy and a waste of time.
Moreover, it’s irrelevant to what I’m saying. You need to reread my article perhaps? I’ve not suggested restricting free speech.
I can see you feel passionately about this stuff, but you seem to be having an argument with yourself about things you infer but which are not implied … and as I keep saying: I don’t think this is the forum to do that.
Nothing you reply explains your opinions or helps my misunderstanding! You do not engage on questions about what you’ve actually written. What is the point in replying to your readers if you won’t answer questions? How do you square the pretty obvious contradiction that you say now that you believe in free speech but you argue that Zuckerberg should be censoring toxic masculinity? It’s a fair bloody question!! About YOUR writing!!!!
Are you so dissociated that you don’t realise that the opinion I have of you is taken from the words you’ve written. If you don’t like it you’ll have to write about different things. Or turn off comments to non subscribers (believers).
I don't know how many times I have to say the same things.
1. What I think is toxic speech is not relevant to anyone or anything. I don't care what you or anyone else says. As I make abundantly clear to anyone who reads what I write with an open mind: I believe vehemently in free speech.
2. I neither know nor care in which dark corner of your mind you found your opinion of me but it's not because you actually know anything about me. You started your unsolicited foray into commentary here by referring to people of "my class" ("Komprosat") ... long before I wrote "Free Peach 🍑" so you clearly had a view before any of the words written above.
3. I'll leave comments on thanks (as is my right) and you can continue to comment (though that's not your right, to be clear) but please stop bleating on about your misunderstandings of what I stand for because it's getting neither of us anywhere.
Read or don't read. I don't care. But my views are not your responsibility, nor do I need you to try and correct them, especially when you seem to refuse to understand what they are.
And for the record, turning off "comments to non subscribers (believers)" doesn't help me at all, since (unless I block you or you leave) you ARE a subscriber!? 🙄
You have not explained anything you’ve written in your article or backed up any of your opinions with evidence and you haven’t engaged in the topic you started. Last try. What (your words now) “dangerous” “toxic” “hateful” content are you referring to in YOUR ARTICLES! And how is that not speech? Just explain the ideas that you write about for all to read. That’s why you’re here right?
Explain where I’m misunderstanding you at least. You are arguing about content moderation are you not? That IS the speech debate and you are pro government regulation beyond already illegal content. How am I misinformed?
I have neither the time nor will to keep explaining myself to you.
You seem to have such a ludicrously inflated opinion of your own interpretation of who I am, what I believe and what I'm trying to say that discussing it with you is pointless ... and, quite frankly: boring.
For the umpteenth time: "free speech" is not at issue. It's misdirection. The (current) establishment is not coming to cut out your tongue.
Please give an example of the harmful (but legal) content that YOU want to censor? You mention hate, racism and toxic masculinity. You think you are NOT campaigning against free speech? One of your arguments mocks free speech in the Title. Do you misunderstand what constitutes speech sir. I am absolutely arguing against your words exactly! Are you going to engage with your own arguments and defend them or not? Why post them and allow comments? Do you only engage properly with people who agree with you that speech on social media is different because “science” says it’s addictive? How does that “empirical” fact change anything in the content moderation context you talk about? Why do you think Facebook is better regulated by woke Californian tech workers than by its users. You misunderstand yourself and your own writings. Maybe you need to read them again and engage on the issues YOU talk about in them as I have been.
It’s very clever that you twist things this way, what with comparing speech to food and everything else. The communication means may be a “product” but the individuals communicating on it are not. Ownership of media debate is as old as time but very different to calls for government censorship such as yours and anger at government media company censorship being removed such as yours. Words you believe are hatred and lies are free speech as well. You want the things you define as such to be manipulated or removed because you say they are harmful, which is an opinion only. Dress it up in your clever head any way you want but none of your misdirection actually leads away from that fact.
We may be free to our opinions or maybe we’ll get a knock on our door and be arrested for a non crime hate incident like thousands of Brits every year even AFTER the Supreme Court ruled against it. That is the new Britain that your views brought into existence. Thoughtcrime Britain. If you do not yet understand the dangers of governments being the arbiters of truth maybe you should take some history lessons. Your position is the authoritarian one and safety from the indecent, immoral and of course the resurrected, facist and commie “misinformation” has been the language of every dictator down the line old and new. Using “absolutist” and “hate” alongside “speech” is a manipulative way to split speech into categories but the “speech” part stays the same no matter how hard you want it not to. Media companies can censor as they choose and you whining that you don’t like the opinions on there is all in the game but government “regulation” as you like it called does have the obvious consequences you seem to be blissfully unaware of.
Many people around the globe see speech as a right worth having and in need of protection but not you on here. In fact you mock the concept even, in your posts. You are free to your calls to authority for protection from nasty words but they are dangerously misguided on a fundamental level. I think you think that your position is not an authoritarian one but of course it very much is. If I can prove to you the obvious harm in trust that brings about in all countries that have these government “regulations” you call for and the way that they are without fail always abused by government eventually, would you actually change your mind? There are so many examples and even some since the internets invention, and you wouldn’t have wanted to live in any of them at the time. Mostly the names of their censorship laws translate closely in title to ours so it’s pretty easy to research. The campaigns to bring about these laws and cement into power one dictator or another often campaigned with exactly the type and phrases of language manipulation you use as well. Do you think this is a coincidence? Do you think that you are the only decent thought crime advocate in history then? I doubt it.
I think you are likely caught up in a moral panic online and are manipulated into authoritarian opinions through fear of the “other” just like everyone else clamouring for censorship, always.
The Genocide in Myanmar has a history that caused it, so did the Arab spring and the race riots in the uk, to blame the means of communication is another great example of where you really are missing the point and therefore why your calls for gatekeepers to information are unlikely to be part of any solution. It only takes one match to light a haystack but the growing haystack is the problem and the world is always going to be full of matches. It’s going to combust eventually if you don’t realise it early and burn it when it’s small. It will grow big enough to burn the village. The censorship blanket you are trying to hide the haystack with just allows it to keep growing but out of your sight for a while. It’s going to be a big fire for some of the issues you want to continue to throw that blanket over, it’s better in the long run to have them out earlier and to not let them grow out of sight to the epic proportions they will be when they eventually go up.
There is no difference between government deamplifying legal speech they disagree with and them censoring it completely as it has exactly the same effect. Freedom of reach is just another clever language twisting argument (your side do a lot of those) to try and argue up is down. “Yeah you can speak but not in the public square like us, you have to stand in the river with a box on your head, and yes you’ve still got the same rights as everyone else so stop moaning”. Can you hear yourself?
If you can’t get past your misapprehension about what I believe then having this debate is pointless.
I’m not reading all that because it’s clearly not really directed at me and I’ve better things to do.
I’m not advocating the regulation of speech. I am advocating the regulation of the distribution of addictive, harmful substances (hence the metaphor to alcohol).
I’m sure we would agree that pushing alcohol or meth to children should be regulated.
We might agree that pushing sugar at kids should be regulated.
Addictive, manipulated media is no different, psychoactively/chemically than many other regulated drugs. You can deny that if you like but it’s empirical science.
So stop pretending we’re on other sides of the fence here. All that is really at issue is the subtle boundaries of necessary regulation (age, toxicity etc). That is a debate we could have if you could let go of your irrational anger towards whoever you seem to think I represent.
The rest is just noise.
You can get on your antiestablishment high-horse, look down your nose and presuppose you actually know me (which you don’t) but in the end you seem to be the one with a box on your head, flailing around trying to fight a fight neither I, nor I suspect anyone else, is really interested in having with you.
Until you get past your own presumptions, there’s no point continuing this and I suggest you just unsubscribe. ✌️
Free peach. Love it!
Also clever that you explored the difference between free speech and free reach.
I might argue that now political influence is much more important value to Musk than advertising. (He hardly wooed his advertisers when he acquired Twitter/X).
Trump’s tech bros’ advocacy for ‘free speech’ on the grounds that the traditional media system is suppressing ‘the truth’ is of course laughable, public awareness of the truth not generally being of the remotest interest to them.
The speech you would ban is subjective and gives us an easy and obvious place to start in fighting back against this censorship movement you are currently campaigning for, it is just so damaging for our society.
TOXIC masculinity, when was this phrase first used, who was it used by and for what purpose? Is there actually a non toxic masculinity in the minds of the people who say toxic masculinity?
Let’s say that Elon accusing Jess Philip’s of being a rape apologist is an obvious example and we ban it. Do we also ban Jess Phillips from accusing George Galloway of the same in 2015 on the same platform? Is it ok to say the words if you’re of the correct sex? Is Phillips guilty of inciting the verbal and physical attacks Galloway suffered around that time?
You defined toxic masculinity in a way that EVERYONE agreed with of course. It stands to reason that you now should now define and ban toxic femininity, while you’re at it you should ban narcissistic behaviour, that’s toxic, oh and food recipes that aren’t healthy that’s literally toxic.
These are old and obvious arguments (shame we have to keep making them really) but the evidence around us of the slippery slope is everywhere and you’d have be blind to ignore it. To call for mechanisms to be in place for states to have such control over individual expression is self harm.
Do you want Reform to have the levers to control public discourse around race after the next election? Then don’t create them.
Let’s hope that Trump doesn’t pressure the American social media, fund ngos and “rights” groups, charities or just demand censorship directly in emails from the white house the way the Biden administration did. You better really pray that he doesn’t bring in his very own version of speech laws like we have in the uk. Say goodbye to your opinion for sure if Toxic Masculinity definitions were written or amended by people who think your opinions better reflect the words. I’m not sure I’d totally disagree with them.
There is a much more important group with toxic ideologies that we need to ponder. They fight to preserve the moral bounds of society and are oblivious to the consequences of censorship which are literally the studied and stated path to the worst societies humans suffer under. You deny reality and have to create new terms that have undefinable meanings. It’s interesting to see the new “absolutist” moniker for people who are anti censorship. It’s reminiscent of the recent “denier” moniker that folks added to global warming sceptics it’s great propaganda repetition though, top marks. You should try to go professional.
We have not found out yet in Britain exactly how our state and wealthy elites use (you would say corrupt instead of use) our speech regulations to their advantage to control the narrative and keep their statuses BECAUSE we have a small, scared shitless of the consequences, independent Media and a highly “regulated” Broadcast and now, almost unbelievably in a free society, print media also.
It was hard fought to get the establishment control out of the uk for example the blasphemy laws that allowed the church hideous undemocratic power (Ireland also of course). We are a whisker away from Blasphemy’s new incarnations in the UK again and the Scott’s have already crossed over that bridge. This will not create the haven of religious tolerance that you might believe.
Free speech is bad, people can be whatever they want, they can choose to openly hold toxic “false beliefs” but it shouldn’t be regulated, your authoritarian opinions turned into law have destroyed all trust and created a paranoid
The internet is printing the court transcripts that our media chose not to, believably because they feared being incendiary, it’s always been in the broadcast regulations that they will get in a lot of trouble for that. I bet it’s no 1 in the new print media ones. The stifling heat of regulation and law around race and fear of radical Islam leads to the continued rape of thousands of children. Not in all cases, but in thousands. Apparently we are again to be told we are only allowed to have the conversation if we don’t use hurty words. Well it’s happening and not pretty but it is unfortunate for the girls we couldn’t have it at the time because it has facilitated action already that other campaigns had failed to produce the pressure for and if it keeps up we might even see some accountability for the first time from anyone in authority. Censorship was a root cause in these cases, further censorship will likely further facilitate the coverup and the continuation again.
Whether an authoritarian establishment stooge or a useful idiot (get the reference) your dangerous words and malinformation can and may be used by an authoritarian state to justify the further removal of power from its population to organise and express opinion against it and that sir is why your words are far more dangerous than trolls on the internet.
I still think you should have the right to express them even though I’m pretty sure that their propagation and acceptance if by the majority or their misuse by a powerful minority (as in now maybe) will be the end of our dream of living in a liberal democracy.
Sir, you seem to misunderstand what I’m saying and you seem to be putting ideas in my head and words in my mouth that just aren’t there.
Free speech is not in question. This is about free reach.
Maybe read it again.
It’s about the total deregulation of, and profiting from the propagation of hatred and lies.
Specifically I’m talking about Facebook’s policy change because Facebook, let’s face it, have tried this before and excited a genocide (see: Myanmar 2017) … only now they’re trying it in Trump’s America.
It’s a totally self-serving commercial move that with it brings harm.
We accept regulation in almost every walk of life — building, road safety, border control, banking etc — and particularly in relation to things we consume — drugs, medicine, food etc.
Media is food for the mind. It’s a cornerstone of who we believe we are.
So, however evil you want to think the scary people in Whitehall (or wherever) are … and just to be clear, I’ve zero interest in debating that with you … it is the case that total deregulation of social media — an addictive product that monetises fear and hatred above all else — is a dereliction of the duty of government.
You may disagree. If you do I think you’re wrong. But hey … we’re free to think how we like and say what we like because you know what: free speech isn’t at issue here after all.
If government regulated the distribution of “harmful” speech online it would so obviously be censorship. Are you just trolling? You think there’s a difference between controls at the distribution stage or later? You want your government to have control over legal speech distribution on the internet. That’s a statement of fact right? It’s worse even than banning because people won’t even know they are being censored. We have people arrested for posting because of our current speech laws. That’s a fact. Thousands a year, look it up. The laws you want will be abused in just the same way. That’s why we used to think expression was a right. Your battle for safety online is illiberal and a further slide if introduced into a nightmare authoritarian state.
You’re still confusing things … people being arrested for speech has nothing to do with regulating algorithms? If you can’t stay on track the conversation is pointless.
On the subject of speech: freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequence.
The application of law is all about the balance of what is reasonable and the conflict between different priorities. It doesn’t deal in absolutes. That’s how it always has and always will work, as is correct. You can keep advocating for absolutes but it’s a fantasy and a waste of time.
Moreover, it’s irrelevant to what I’m saying. You need to reread my article perhaps? I’ve not suggested restricting free speech.
I can see you feel passionately about this stuff, but you seem to be having an argument with yourself about things you infer but which are not implied … and as I keep saying: I don’t think this is the forum to do that.
And I know exactly what class you are, you wrote who you are under your face.
Nothing you reply explains your opinions or helps my misunderstanding! You do not engage on questions about what you’ve actually written. What is the point in replying to your readers if you won’t answer questions? How do you square the pretty obvious contradiction that you say now that you believe in free speech but you argue that Zuckerberg should be censoring toxic masculinity? It’s a fair bloody question!! About YOUR writing!!!!
🙄 ... it might be a fair question if were actually what I wrote. But it's not. So it isn't.
You must learn to separate reality from interpretation... or just read more carefully.
Your call. ✌️
Are you so dissociated that you don’t realise that the opinion I have of you is taken from the words you’ve written. If you don’t like it you’ll have to write about different things. Or turn off comments to non subscribers (believers).
I don't know how many times I have to say the same things.
1. What I think is toxic speech is not relevant to anyone or anything. I don't care what you or anyone else says. As I make abundantly clear to anyone who reads what I write with an open mind: I believe vehemently in free speech.
2. I neither know nor care in which dark corner of your mind you found your opinion of me but it's not because you actually know anything about me. You started your unsolicited foray into commentary here by referring to people of "my class" ("Komprosat") ... long before I wrote "Free Peach 🍑" so you clearly had a view before any of the words written above.
3. I'll leave comments on thanks (as is my right) and you can continue to comment (though that's not your right, to be clear) but please stop bleating on about your misunderstandings of what I stand for because it's getting neither of us anywhere.
Read or don't read. I don't care. But my views are not your responsibility, nor do I need you to try and correct them, especially when you seem to refuse to understand what they are.
And for the record, turning off "comments to non subscribers (believers)" doesn't help me at all, since (unless I block you or you leave) you ARE a subscriber!? 🙄
You have not explained anything you’ve written in your article or backed up any of your opinions with evidence and you haven’t engaged in the topic you started. Last try. What (your words now) “dangerous” “toxic” “hateful” content are you referring to in YOUR ARTICLES! And how is that not speech? Just explain the ideas that you write about for all to read. That’s why you’re here right?
Explain where I’m misunderstanding you at least. You are arguing about content moderation are you not? That IS the speech debate and you are pro government regulation beyond already illegal content. How am I misinformed?
I have neither the time nor will to keep explaining myself to you.
You seem to have such a ludicrously inflated opinion of your own interpretation of who I am, what I believe and what I'm trying to say that discussing it with you is pointless ... and, quite frankly: boring.
For the umpteenth time: "free speech" is not at issue. It's misdirection. The (current) establishment is not coming to cut out your tongue.
If you don't believe me, I can't help you.
Please give an example of the harmful (but legal) content that YOU want to censor? You mention hate, racism and toxic masculinity. You think you are NOT campaigning against free speech? One of your arguments mocks free speech in the Title. Do you misunderstand what constitutes speech sir. I am absolutely arguing against your words exactly! Are you going to engage with your own arguments and defend them or not? Why post them and allow comments? Do you only engage properly with people who agree with you that speech on social media is different because “science” says it’s addictive? How does that “empirical” fact change anything in the content moderation context you talk about? Why do you think Facebook is better regulated by woke Californian tech workers than by its users. You misunderstand yourself and your own writings. Maybe you need to read them again and engage on the issues YOU talk about in them as I have been.
It’s very clever that you twist things this way, what with comparing speech to food and everything else. The communication means may be a “product” but the individuals communicating on it are not. Ownership of media debate is as old as time but very different to calls for government censorship such as yours and anger at government media company censorship being removed such as yours. Words you believe are hatred and lies are free speech as well. You want the things you define as such to be manipulated or removed because you say they are harmful, which is an opinion only. Dress it up in your clever head any way you want but none of your misdirection actually leads away from that fact.
We may be free to our opinions or maybe we’ll get a knock on our door and be arrested for a non crime hate incident like thousands of Brits every year even AFTER the Supreme Court ruled against it. That is the new Britain that your views brought into existence. Thoughtcrime Britain. If you do not yet understand the dangers of governments being the arbiters of truth maybe you should take some history lessons. Your position is the authoritarian one and safety from the indecent, immoral and of course the resurrected, facist and commie “misinformation” has been the language of every dictator down the line old and new. Using “absolutist” and “hate” alongside “speech” is a manipulative way to split speech into categories but the “speech” part stays the same no matter how hard you want it not to. Media companies can censor as they choose and you whining that you don’t like the opinions on there is all in the game but government “regulation” as you like it called does have the obvious consequences you seem to be blissfully unaware of.
Many people around the globe see speech as a right worth having and in need of protection but not you on here. In fact you mock the concept even, in your posts. You are free to your calls to authority for protection from nasty words but they are dangerously misguided on a fundamental level. I think you think that your position is not an authoritarian one but of course it very much is. If I can prove to you the obvious harm in trust that brings about in all countries that have these government “regulations” you call for and the way that they are without fail always abused by government eventually, would you actually change your mind? There are so many examples and even some since the internets invention, and you wouldn’t have wanted to live in any of them at the time. Mostly the names of their censorship laws translate closely in title to ours so it’s pretty easy to research. The campaigns to bring about these laws and cement into power one dictator or another often campaigned with exactly the type and phrases of language manipulation you use as well. Do you think this is a coincidence? Do you think that you are the only decent thought crime advocate in history then? I doubt it.
I think you are likely caught up in a moral panic online and are manipulated into authoritarian opinions through fear of the “other” just like everyone else clamouring for censorship, always.
The Genocide in Myanmar has a history that caused it, so did the Arab spring and the race riots in the uk, to blame the means of communication is another great example of where you really are missing the point and therefore why your calls for gatekeepers to information are unlikely to be part of any solution. It only takes one match to light a haystack but the growing haystack is the problem and the world is always going to be full of matches. It’s going to combust eventually if you don’t realise it early and burn it when it’s small. It will grow big enough to burn the village. The censorship blanket you are trying to hide the haystack with just allows it to keep growing but out of your sight for a while. It’s going to be a big fire for some of the issues you want to continue to throw that blanket over, it’s better in the long run to have them out earlier and to not let them grow out of sight to the epic proportions they will be when they eventually go up.
There is no difference between government deamplifying legal speech they disagree with and them censoring it completely as it has exactly the same effect. Freedom of reach is just another clever language twisting argument (your side do a lot of those) to try and argue up is down. “Yeah you can speak but not in the public square like us, you have to stand in the river with a box on your head, and yes you’ve still got the same rights as everyone else so stop moaning”. Can you hear yourself?
If you can’t get past your misapprehension about what I believe then having this debate is pointless.
I’m not reading all that because it’s clearly not really directed at me and I’ve better things to do.
I’m not advocating the regulation of speech. I am advocating the regulation of the distribution of addictive, harmful substances (hence the metaphor to alcohol).
I’m sure we would agree that pushing alcohol or meth to children should be regulated.
We might agree that pushing sugar at kids should be regulated.
Addictive, manipulated media is no different, psychoactively/chemically than many other regulated drugs. You can deny that if you like but it’s empirical science.
So stop pretending we’re on other sides of the fence here. All that is really at issue is the subtle boundaries of necessary regulation (age, toxicity etc). That is a debate we could have if you could let go of your irrational anger towards whoever you seem to think I represent.
The rest is just noise.
You can get on your antiestablishment high-horse, look down your nose and presuppose you actually know me (which you don’t) but in the end you seem to be the one with a box on your head, flailing around trying to fight a fight neither I, nor I suspect anyone else, is really interested in having with you.
Until you get past your own presumptions, there’s no point continuing this and I suggest you just unsubscribe. ✌️