Social media teaches us we do not want to be able to read people’s minds 🙂
More threats against BigTech will cause them to change how they run their businesses – and may be used by the government to encourage more de facto government censorship via proxy. “What would you like us to censor today?” they might ask.
Illinois says they have too many carjackings and proposes the solution is to ban the Grand Theft Auto video gaming. Censorship is so 2021!
Facebook CEO did, in fact, intercede in FB’s teams decisions regarding acceptable speech on Facebook. Now we get government censorship via proxy – and let billionaires decide what we are allowed to read, see or hear.
“Tear gas” and “Pepper spray” have been redefined by riot enthusiasts as “chemical munitions” and “chemical weapons” as they seek to ban the use of crowd control measures by police, when employed at “mostly peaceful protests”. Changing the language is one of the first steps taken in a propaganda campaign. Language redefinition goes on all the time, and lately, with increasing frequency.
AP fantasizes: “It sounded so ambitious at first blush: 100 million vaccination shots in 100 days.” Not even close to ambitious. More details inside.
A “report” by an advocacy group opposes “vaccine nationalism” and says we need “a massive course correction” on vaccine distribution by redirecting “excess rich-country doses” to “poorer countries”. But they pulled a little trick in their description – twisting the facts.
Al Jazeera runs a column by a professor of philosophy who says capitalism is a failure and that only government can deliver the “innovation” necessary to deliver vaccines for Covid-19. Al Jazeera fails to note his background as an avid socialist member of groups opposed to the “neoliberal capitalist model”. Failing to disclose this background context turns this into a propaganda piece versus not legitimate analysis of issues.
The large social media companies have demonstrated they have more power than government, government leaders and government agencies. At what point does this get treated by a government as a declaration of war, and get a corresponding response?
If the government prohibited us from engaging in speech someone in power did not like, this would be called censorship and a violation of the First Amendment. What is it called when the government puts pressure on BigTech companies to censor speech? It’s called government censorship via proxy. And the BigTech companies seem very happy to comply with government censorship campaigns – to curry political favors as government threatens them with regulation.