"Freedom of speech is now a continuous spectrum, a reach knob adjusted by algorithms and tweaked by the companies where speech happens and the audience is”
I'm having a hard time squaring this claim with ordinary definitions — at least, the definitions before content moderators and fact checkers rewrote the dictionary.
"Freedom of speech is now a continuous spectrum, a reach knob adjusted by algorithms and tweaked by the companies where speech happens and the audience is”
I'm having a hard time squaring this claim with ordinary definitions — at least, the definitions before content moderators and fact checkers rewrote the dictionary.
That is not free speech. At least not in the US, where free speech has a definition: It is what is permitted by law, which imposes only a set of narrow restrictions. That does not mean that any sequence of words or any media is permitted. It does, however, have a definition. And it permits an awful lot of speech that is not permitted on these private platforms.
Yet these platforms aren’t open about what they’re doing. When their censorship is applied only to one political camp, when they don't acknowledge their uniform loyalty to the the dictates of Team Blue, then we are dealing with a false promise and false pretense of neutrality. The brilliance of this arrangement is that these companies implement government-desired censorship on critical topics — a practice that’s been been openly demanded by the administration, which cannot itself act as the censor:
"Nice business ya got there. Be a shame if something happened to your right to operate."
This new system goes beyond the inhibition of political opinions. It also makes advocacy of positions not held by the federal bureaucracy impossible, even as those positions change over time. Today we’re at war with Oceania, tomorrow with East Asia. Experts and fact checkers agree.
This contributes not just to suppression of politically undesirable content, but also acts as a means of suppressing the process by which facts are established. Facts are not a government product, to be enforced by its political allies. Facts are established by analysis, argument, refutation and data-backed discussion . You note that the turnabout on Covid lab leak theory, yet dismiss other now-dismissed claims as conspiracy theories. What gives you the confidence to make this claim? The lab leak theory was been subject to investigation. Yet it could not be discussed in respectable venues until a Team Blue allied media organ looked into it -- after the political danger had passed.
This is how facts are suppressed and science is transformed into declaration-by-authority. Now the same suppression occurs on any politically sensitive subject.
The claim that social media is somehow different in kind from anything that preceded it, and that free speech (in its definition long-established in the US) doesn't apply, is merely a self-serving and politically-driven assertion.
We're now seeing free-speech conventionalists (not "absolutists") being called "free speehchers". It goes along perfectly with “freedumb”, because when it comes to speech, freedom is now slavery.
This rewrites reality and represents a fundamental change in American society. No one voted for it; it is not widely supported. But you'd never know if your view of reality is set by what’s permitted on these platforms.
If the platforms had confidence in their positions, they’d be open about their political allegiances and constratints, what topics they censor, and why. Instead they portray what they do as fair and merely protective of the vulnerable… by which they mean the ignorant masses who don't run in their social circles and can’t think for themselves.
At this point Team Blue seems to have elevated censorship to part of its religion, and suddenly the censors on are the right side of history. The safe bet is that there is no turning back and that speech will be further constricted using the tools of government, on or offline, with our without a change in law. We are already at a point where expression of opinions that lie outside the range permitted by Team Blue result in unemployment. “Speech has consequences”, they say. Yet somehow these mortal sins didn’t exist just a few years ago.
We know where this all leads, based on clear historical precedent. Should be an interesting ride. Too bad we won’t be permitted to have an open debate about it.
"Freedom of speech is now a continuous spectrum, a reach knob adjusted by algorithms and tweaked by the companies where speech happens and the audience is”
I'm having a hard time squaring this claim with ordinary definitions — at least, the definitions before content moderators and fact checkers rewrote the dictionary.
That is not free speech. At least not in the US, where free speech has a definition: It is what is permitted by law, which imposes only a set of narrow restrictions. That does not mean that any sequence of words or any media is permitted. It does, however, have a definition. And it permits an awful lot of speech that is not permitted on these private platforms.
Yet these platforms aren’t open about what they’re doing. When their censorship is applied only to one political camp, when they don't acknowledge their uniform loyalty to the the dictates of Team Blue, then we are dealing with a false promise and false pretense of neutrality. The brilliance of this arrangement is that these companies implement government-desired censorship on critical topics — a practice that’s been been openly demanded by the administration, which cannot itself act as the censor:
"Nice business ya got there. Be a shame if something happened to your right to operate."
This new system goes beyond the inhibition of political opinions. It also makes advocacy of positions not held by the federal bureaucracy impossible, even as those positions change over time. Today we’re at war with Oceania, tomorrow with East Asia. Experts and fact checkers agree.
This contributes not just to suppression of politically undesirable content, but also acts as a means of suppressing the process by which facts are established. Facts are not a government product, to be enforced by its political allies. Facts are established by analysis, argument, refutation and data-backed discussion . You note that the turnabout on Covid lab leak theory, yet dismiss other now-dismissed claims as conspiracy theories. What gives you the confidence to make this claim? The lab leak theory was been subject to investigation. Yet it could not be discussed in respectable venues until a Team Blue allied media organ looked into it -- after the political danger had passed.
This is how facts are suppressed and science is transformed into declaration-by-authority. Now the same suppression occurs on any politically sensitive subject.
The claim that social media is somehow different in kind from anything that preceded it, and that free speech (in its definition long-established in the US) doesn't apply, is merely a self-serving and politically-driven assertion.
We're now seeing free-speech conventionalists (not "absolutists") being called "free speehchers". It goes along perfectly with “freedumb”, because when it comes to speech, freedom is now slavery.
This rewrites reality and represents a fundamental change in American society. No one voted for it; it is not widely supported. But you'd never know if your view of reality is set by what’s permitted on these platforms.
If the platforms had confidence in their positions, they’d be open about their political allegiances and constratints, what topics they censor, and why. Instead they portray what they do as fair and merely protective of the vulnerable… by which they mean the ignorant masses who don't run in their social circles and can’t think for themselves.
At this point Team Blue seems to have elevated censorship to part of its religion, and suddenly the censors on are the right side of history. The safe bet is that there is no turning back and that speech will be further constricted using the tools of government, on or offline, with our without a change in law. We are already at a point where expression of opinions that lie outside the range permitted by Team Blue result in unemployment. “Speech has consequences”, they say. Yet somehow these mortal sins didn’t exist just a few years ago.
We know where this all leads, based on clear historical precedent. Should be an interesting ride. Too bad we won’t be permitted to have an open debate about it.