I totally agree with you that one of the most important questions about what we should hear and what we shouldn't hear -- perhaps the single most important questions -- is, "Who gets to decide?" The pro-censorship people keep trying to create the impression that there is some objective standard to discern real news from fake news, information from misinformation. They resort to saying, "Well, the fact-checkers looked into it," as if fact-checking were somehow an objective process. And most of these pro-censorship people hate the corporations, yet they want the corporations to decide what we can know and what we can't! Let's all keep hammering on this "Who gets to decide?" question, I think it's the key.
As the citizen of a country that is having debates about the approval of a disinformation law, I find it hilarious when I think about how many times the institutionalized fact-checkers will have to backtrack their statements due to the discovery of new evidence or erroneous research. Soon, it will take the "celerity" of a court to post anything in the internet. Oh, I'm sure this won't degrade even further whatever inch of trust the people have left for their governments.
I don’t think they actually hate the corporations. That was just posturing, and they don’t seem to do even that anymore. They’re fully in bed with corporate elites.
There are times when words seem to have so little value. That all the noise on social media is just that, noise. No action. You can get to the point where you think its true. That words don't really matter. Its all empty hot air. But if they didn't matter then there wouldn't be this much contention. Yeah, most of it is noise but like everything else in the universe there is this small 1% that makes all the difference. Its uncanny how it plays out. How this 1% of all the noise that happens to contain some hard truths can be loaded with such significance is enough to reaffirm lost faith in something like spiritual righteousness.
When one runs out of valid arguments, one resorts to name calling. This is where the Dems are these days. This is why they don’t want debate because the only card up their sleeve is the ad hominem.
I wish Dr Lyons-Weiler had proposed some explanations for why Big Tech was able to get away with so much censorship. Legislation 230 allows these companies to censor what has been posted to their sites and also gives them immunity from lawsuits. It is how they got away with censorship- they call it "editorializing"- and not be subject to lawsuits. This law needs to be repealed.
He also made a few errors in his speech. 1) the big effect of emerging technologies isn't a new problem for the government. They are thrilled to have a new tool with which to spread lies and propaganda. 2) He wrote/said, "There are those who say they believe that the unfettered sharing of knowledge and information is a danger to society. We understand". Wait. How exactly do "we understand". Exactly how is "the unfettered sharing of knowledge and information a danger to society"? Answer: It isn't. When people are allowed to decide for themselves, society benefits. There should be no "We understand" for an absurd comment like that ('sharing of knowledge and information is a danger to society').
While I agree that this was no Gettysburg address, I wanted to highlight the fact that a scientist is speaking publicly about censorship. There have been times in our history where it was incumbent upon statepersons, preachers and activists to remind of us of the danger of censorship to our freedoms. At this time the responsibility largely falls upon the scientists. It is their (our) job to lead the battle against censorship after what has transpired in the last three years.
Thanks for bringing up Legislation 230. This statute is inherently destructive to free expression. It's also paradoxical that it allows these media platforms to censor while at the same time protecting them from liability for around the content they publish.
I agree that the government is thrilled to have a new tool to influence the minds and hearts of their citizenry. However it's a double edged sword for them.
They already had control over the narrative through TV and radio. I think all in all, the internet poses more of a problem than an advantage to censorship proponents.
Just thirty years ago if you were a dissenter you would have had to distribute pamphlets in the town square. Now you can host a podcast, start a channel, post on FB and connect with people on other continents and build a community. You don't need a broadcasting license from the FCC. It's no surprise that the gov had to collude to game the system.
This was James' statement: "We understand, however, that their fear of loss of control - and the gains and advantages that come with control - drives their instinct to silence dissent."
I think James was explaining that this "danger to society" is actually their fear of losing control over it. It's therefore "understandable" that they would want to silence dissenters for their real reasons.
1. The internet's advantage to government is because of the potential for propaganda dissemination, not "to censor(ship) proponents". I think you might have mixed two different things together, censorship and propaganda, both horrible things, but different, as you know.
2. You didn't refer to the statement I was referring to in James's speech. The one I was referring to states, "There are those who say they believe that the unfettered sharing of knowledge and information is a danger to society. We understand". This is abhorrent to me. I would have said (in place of "We understand"): ' I do not understand how anyone could believe such a thing. It is entirely antithetical to the principles upon which our country was founded.'
1) Yes, I wasn't clear here. What I wish to say is that even though the internet allows the gov to propagate propaganda, it also allows an individual to spread dissenting opinion. In the end, imo, it works to the individual's advantage because eventually the blatant censorship required to maintain their false narrative will become apparent to all. I believe that is what we are seeing at this moment.
2) Isn't this the quote in its entirety? "There are those who say they believe that the unfettered sharing of knowledge and information is a danger to society. We understand, however, that their fear of loss of control - and the gains and advantages that come with control - drives their instinct to silence dissent. "
Yes. I think the source of the confusion is that the second sentence doesn't relate to the first. Thanks for pointing out that I cut the second sentence short. I must have mistaken a comma for a period.
We all know that those keeping secrets and censoring voices are the evil ones. We care not to censor them but simply to insist that all voices be heard.
Humans acting out of fear always denigrate what it is to be truly, humbly, human.
Reptiles best describes them: angry, reacting, self-loathing, reality-denying, weak, stupid( i prefer the Bonhoeffer sense of the word), never leading but following a herd. Of reptiles.
I totally agree with you that one of the most important questions about what we should hear and what we shouldn't hear -- perhaps the single most important questions -- is, "Who gets to decide?" The pro-censorship people keep trying to create the impression that there is some objective standard to discern real news from fake news, information from misinformation. They resort to saying, "Well, the fact-checkers looked into it," as if fact-checking were somehow an objective process. And most of these pro-censorship people hate the corporations, yet they want the corporations to decide what we can know and what we can't! Let's all keep hammering on this "Who gets to decide?" question, I think it's the key.
As the citizen of a country that is having debates about the approval of a disinformation law, I find it hilarious when I think about how many times the institutionalized fact-checkers will have to backtrack their statements due to the discovery of new evidence or erroneous research. Soon, it will take the "celerity" of a court to post anything in the internet. Oh, I'm sure this won't degrade even further whatever inch of trust the people have left for their governments.
I don’t think they actually hate the corporations. That was just posturing, and they don’t seem to do even that anymore. They’re fully in bed with corporate elites.
Thanks for using your platform to fight censorship.
There are times when words seem to have so little value. That all the noise on social media is just that, noise. No action. You can get to the point where you think its true. That words don't really matter. Its all empty hot air. But if they didn't matter then there wouldn't be this much contention. Yeah, most of it is noise but like everything else in the universe there is this small 1% that makes all the difference. Its uncanny how it plays out. How this 1% of all the noise that happens to contain some hard truths can be loaded with such significance is enough to reaffirm lost faith in something like spiritual righteousness.
Mattias Desmet would say five percent--even better!
When one runs out of valid arguments, one resorts to name calling. This is where the Dems are these days. This is why they don’t want debate because the only card up their sleeve is the ad hominem.
Video and transcript of Kennedy’s “This is an attempt to censor a censorship hearing.”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/07/20/kennedy_at_weaponization_of_government_hearing_we_have_to_stop_trying_to_destroy_each_other.html
I wish Dr Lyons-Weiler had proposed some explanations for why Big Tech was able to get away with so much censorship. Legislation 230 allows these companies to censor what has been posted to their sites and also gives them immunity from lawsuits. It is how they got away with censorship- they call it "editorializing"- and not be subject to lawsuits. This law needs to be repealed.
He also made a few errors in his speech. 1) the big effect of emerging technologies isn't a new problem for the government. They are thrilled to have a new tool with which to spread lies and propaganda. 2) He wrote/said, "There are those who say they believe that the unfettered sharing of knowledge and information is a danger to society. We understand". Wait. How exactly do "we understand". Exactly how is "the unfettered sharing of knowledge and information a danger to society"? Answer: It isn't. When people are allowed to decide for themselves, society benefits. There should be no "We understand" for an absurd comment like that ('sharing of knowledge and information is a danger to society').
While I agree that this was no Gettysburg address, I wanted to highlight the fact that a scientist is speaking publicly about censorship. There have been times in our history where it was incumbent upon statepersons, preachers and activists to remind of us of the danger of censorship to our freedoms. At this time the responsibility largely falls upon the scientists. It is their (our) job to lead the battle against censorship after what has transpired in the last three years.
Thanks for bringing up Legislation 230. This statute is inherently destructive to free expression. It's also paradoxical that it allows these media platforms to censor while at the same time protecting them from liability for around the content they publish.
I agree that the government is thrilled to have a new tool to influence the minds and hearts of their citizenry. However it's a double edged sword for them.
They already had control over the narrative through TV and radio. I think all in all, the internet poses more of a problem than an advantage to censorship proponents.
Just thirty years ago if you were a dissenter you would have had to distribute pamphlets in the town square. Now you can host a podcast, start a channel, post on FB and connect with people on other continents and build a community. You don't need a broadcasting license from the FCC. It's no surprise that the gov had to collude to game the system.
This was James' statement: "We understand, however, that their fear of loss of control - and the gains and advantages that come with control - drives their instinct to silence dissent."
I think James was explaining that this "danger to society" is actually their fear of losing control over it. It's therefore "understandable" that they would want to silence dissenters for their real reasons.
Thank you for that, Dr.
Two brief comments/corrections:
1. The internet's advantage to government is because of the potential for propaganda dissemination, not "to censor(ship) proponents". I think you might have mixed two different things together, censorship and propaganda, both horrible things, but different, as you know.
2. You didn't refer to the statement I was referring to in James's speech. The one I was referring to states, "There are those who say they believe that the unfettered sharing of knowledge and information is a danger to society. We understand". This is abhorrent to me. I would have said (in place of "We understand"): ' I do not understand how anyone could believe such a thing. It is entirely antithetical to the principles upon which our country was founded.'
1) Yes, I wasn't clear here. What I wish to say is that even though the internet allows the gov to propagate propaganda, it also allows an individual to spread dissenting opinion. In the end, imo, it works to the individual's advantage because eventually the blatant censorship required to maintain their false narrative will become apparent to all. I believe that is what we are seeing at this moment.
2) Isn't this the quote in its entirety? "There are those who say they believe that the unfettered sharing of knowledge and information is a danger to society. We understand, however, that their fear of loss of control - and the gains and advantages that come with control - drives their instinct to silence dissent. "
Yes. I think the source of the confusion is that the second sentence doesn't relate to the first. Thanks for pointing out that I cut the second sentence short. I must have mistaken a comma for a period.
We all know that those keeping secrets and censoring voices are the evil ones. We care not to censor them but simply to insist that all voices be heard.
Humans acting out of fear always denigrate what it is to be truly, humbly, human.
Reptiles best describes them: angry, reacting, self-loathing, reality-denying, weak, stupid( i prefer the Bonhoeffer sense of the word), never leading but following a herd. Of reptiles.