I’ve been insufferable about my own thoughts on social media moderation here before (the answer to this question is something like a digital republic where we have digital citizens instead of “users” who vote on policies abs moderate themselves) but I gotta say a full throated defense of free speech and a clear-sighted call out of hypocrisy just hit me the right way.
I’ve always, always *hated* people who say “human history is the story of one group using power to oppress another… except for me and the group I’m in and the stuff we are trying to do right now.”
Great article. Over the past decade I've certainly gained a significant appreciation of just how prescient the founding fathers of the USA were - this coming from someone in the UK where we're pretty much entirely governed at the whim of where the cultural wind blows, all at the expense of individual liberty. The principle of "freedom" just isn't understood anymore but then that's not really a surprise given the decline of Christianity in the country and really poor schooling.
Mike, I have said for a long time that whatever the *-ism is, its all really just about rule of the elite. So yes, its all about "authoritarians still just want(ing) to do authoritarianism". And since hereditary rule is bygone, "Rule by Credential" will suit just fine.
The issue of free speech and censorship on social media is an interesting one. As one of my compatriots brilliantly put it, “Ukrainians are living through war and genocide while having to comply with social media community guidelines.” What we see in practice is that Russian state media is allowed to spread their propaganda advocating for extermination of Ukrainians, while Ukrainians are banned for “hate speech” for telling Russians to go fuck themselves. Facebook is probably the most guilty of it but Twitter is not much better. And here come the main questions: should RIA be allowed to post about “the final solution of the Ukrainian question?”. Should Ukrainians be allowed to post personal info of soldiers who raped and killed on our soil? From the emotional (and I dare to say ethical) point of view, the answers are obvious to me. What is not clear is how can we make sure that this is not reversed, and the power to decide what stays on the platform doesn’t end up in the hands of a genocidal maniac and his minions. Even if temporarily, it would be a disaster. It’s a mistake to say that Russians do not have alternative sources if information. They do, and yet many choose to ignore them and stick to the same voices they hear on TVs. The same might happen with social media. Keep only asinine takes on a platform for a sufficiently long time and they’ll become mainstream. Even subsequent “liberation” of speech is not a guarantee for a cure.
Mike, I have been reading you since you went on Substack. But this is one of your most eloquent pieces. Terse, lucid, pointed -- many thanks.
"Powerful people are interested in suppressing dissent. The end. Full stop. It’s this." Simply stated. Fantastic article!
I’ve been insufferable about my own thoughts on social media moderation here before (the answer to this question is something like a digital republic where we have digital citizens instead of “users” who vote on policies abs moderate themselves) but I gotta say a full throated defense of free speech and a clear-sighted call out of hypocrisy just hit me the right way.
I’ve always, always *hated* people who say “human history is the story of one group using power to oppress another… except for me and the group I’m in and the stuff we are trying to do right now.”
Thanks for writing this!
Great article. Over the past decade I've certainly gained a significant appreciation of just how prescient the founding fathers of the USA were - this coming from someone in the UK where we're pretty much entirely governed at the whim of where the cultural wind blows, all at the expense of individual liberty. The principle of "freedom" just isn't understood anymore but then that's not really a surprise given the decline of Christianity in the country and really poor schooling.
Mike, I have said for a long time that whatever the *-ism is, its all really just about rule of the elite. So yes, its all about "authoritarians still just want(ing) to do authoritarianism". And since hereditary rule is bygone, "Rule by Credential" will suit just fine.
The issue of free speech and censorship on social media is an interesting one. As one of my compatriots brilliantly put it, “Ukrainians are living through war and genocide while having to comply with social media community guidelines.” What we see in practice is that Russian state media is allowed to spread their propaganda advocating for extermination of Ukrainians, while Ukrainians are banned for “hate speech” for telling Russians to go fuck themselves. Facebook is probably the most guilty of it but Twitter is not much better. And here come the main questions: should RIA be allowed to post about “the final solution of the Ukrainian question?”. Should Ukrainians be allowed to post personal info of soldiers who raped and killed on our soil? From the emotional (and I dare to say ethical) point of view, the answers are obvious to me. What is not clear is how can we make sure that this is not reversed, and the power to decide what stays on the platform doesn’t end up in the hands of a genocidal maniac and his minions. Even if temporarily, it would be a disaster. It’s a mistake to say that Russians do not have alternative sources if information. They do, and yet many choose to ignore them and stick to the same voices they hear on TVs. The same might happen with social media. Keep only asinine takes on a platform for a sufficiently long time and they’ll become mainstream. Even subsequent “liberation” of speech is not a guarantee for a cure.