Outrage fatigue probably accounts for why a good chunk of the people I talk to, haven't a clue about all the speech infringements happening. They don't know about the Facebook or Twitter files - no idea. People have retreated into the usual distractions, like entertainment, sports etc. It's hard to blame them in one sense. There's only s…
Outrage fatigue probably accounts for why a good chunk of the people I talk to, haven't a clue about all the speech infringements happening. They don't know about the Facebook or Twitter files - no idea. People have retreated into the usual distractions, like entertainment, sports etc. It's hard to blame them in one sense. There's only so much one's mental health can handle. But something that really needs to be underlined is that you really only believe in freedom of speech if you believe in it for views you despise. As I wrote recently: Recall the now ‘quaint’ old maxim “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?). Alas, such sentiments appear out of vogue, replaced instead by notions like “cancel culture,” “shadow banning” and “de-platforming.”
I for one fully endorse that maxim. I admit to distracting myself late in an evening with light reading or television show, but more out of loss and grief. In fact, many find my following politics, science and such depressing. I consider it food for thought. I'm not tying myself to the steps of the capital because I honestly feel that time has come and gone. I'm at an age where I'm "the interested observer," to quote Ram Das. And I'm ok with that.
MissAnne: you and I would be a sight to behold tied to the steps of the capital! I’m an old girl who delights in thinking of herself as “ungovernable.” Please reconsider your resignation to “interested observer” status.
Oh, honey! Been there, done that. Been arrested for civil disobedience a number of times. Marched till my feet were blistered and my voice hoarse. Never say never, but brain surgery and degenerative cervical myelopathy HAVE slowed me down a step or two. Most who know me still consider me a fearless badass, and as rebellious as ever, which I wear as a badge of honor. Count me in for a Granny March: May as well go out swingin!
Interesting that you used the vague term "speech infringements", and not (for example) "freedom of speech".
The Twitter Files is a bunch of bullshit spun up by Elon Musk to retroactively justify his insane impulse buy of Twitter. The Facebook Files isn't a thing... you can't make a scandal out of thin air just by appending "Files" to something.
The status quo has not changed on this issue. The internet has forced a lot of individuals and organizations to take explicitly censorious stances (what legitimate business wants a hand in propping up a shit pile like the Gray Zone?), but it's not like we're exiting some utopia of unbounded expression where anyone could say anything to any number of people without consequence.
Edit to add: "your right to say it" is in no way infringed by, for example, GoFundMe refusing to host fundraisers for whacky Putin-apologist media outlets. That's *their* freedom of speech being upheld; specifically, their freedom to not provide support or amplification for a message they don't agree with. What you're arguing against *is* freedom of expression.
I said "speech infringements" because there is, in fact, a whole spectrum of actions at play ranging from minor, such as the deletion of a comment to outright banning. (The former happened to me a couple of years back on Facebook for the sin of linking to a Chomsky interview on Russiagate. There's an "explicitly censorious stance" for you; some programmed dweeb in a cubicle who'd bought into four years of Maddow's bullshit deciding I needed a content slap, though more likely it was the "all knowing" algorithm).
My point was not about whether or not GoFundMe has the right to choose to politicize economic services. They do, obviously - just as consumers have the right to boycott. The real threat here is when government pressures Big Tech to suppress certain views (coincidentally they happen to run counter to their own narratives).
So I was really addressing the broader picture - which is not "bullshit." It's actually happening, as Taibbi's extensive reporting on these matters reveals. If you take the time to get into the weeds by reading or listening to these reports, the interplay between these powerful entities is fascinating, nuanced, even sometimes nonsensical, though the overall trend is towards centralizing control.
This is not about Elon Musk's motives or what one thinks of the Gray Zone. Nor is it about content moderation - which of course is necessary, the law being a good starting point as to when some "speech" should, and often is, deleted.
This is about a labyrinth alliance of government agencies, NGOs and political elites — working in concert with Big Tech — to suppress views that run counter to the accepted "groupthink" on a host of issues.
It's an insidious trend across the West. For instance, as British writer Ricky of Councilestatemedia wrote recently: "Anti-imperialist website Mint Press News has had its TikTok account deleted without warning or explanation. This comes after it had previously between de-platformed from PayPal and had its money withheld, with apparent involvement from the US and British governments." In other words, a censorship industrial complex.
Anyone who cares about ensuring a free marketplace of ideas should be alarmed at this state of affairs. Some care. Some do not. Many have understandably retreated into their own cocoons, which was my other point.
"I said "speech infringements" because there is, in fact, a whole spectrum of actions at play ranging from minor, such as the deletion of a comment to outright banning."
Right, but it's not an "infringement" when Facebook or GoFundMe kicks someone out for pissing in the pool. Your description was straightforwardly wrong.
"Anti-imperialist website Mint Press News has had its TikTok account deleted without warning or explanation. This comes after it had previously between de-platformed from PayPal and had its money withheld, with apparent involvement from the US and British governments."
The weasel words "apparent involvement" are doing a lot of work here. Also, this quote emphasizes their "anti-imperialist" stance (ironic since the US and Britain aren't imperialist anymore), but conveniently ignores that they run apologetics for Russia, one of the few nations actively engaging in imperialism in the 21st century.
"So I was really addressing the broader picture - which is not "bullshit." It's actually happening, as Taibbi's extensive reporting on these matters reveals."
I'm sorry, but I *have* been in the weeds (I've been subscribed and reading this substack practically since it launched), and it is almost entirely bullshit, spin, and fabrication. If you just read everything uncritically, it's easy to follow along with the narrative... as soon as you start asking questions like "does this email really mean what Matt claims it does?", you realize that you're relying entirely on the honesty of the author to vouch for the validity of the worldview he presents.
The thing is, Matt has every incentive in the universe to shred the credibility of mainstream media and Democrats: practically his entire audience are right-wingers at this point, and the remainder are almost entirely the kind of "left-wingers" who find crackpots like RFK Jr. and Alex Berenson credible. Moreover, he was essentially ejected from mainstream media because of his coverage of the Trump/Russia investigation and fiasco, so you'd be hard-pressed to find someone less credibly objective on issues like these.
"Anyone who cares about ensuring a free marketplace of ideas should be alarmed at this state of affairs."
Bullshit. Anyone who cares about ensuring a free marketplace of ideas should be overjoyed to see propaganda-spewing rags like Mint Press and Grayzone deamplified and publicly shamed. Disinformation is a censorship tool, whether you or Matt Taibbi realize it or not.
Rather than go through point by point where I disagree, I suggest you write your own Substack. You seem very adamant in your opinions. Rather than simply pontificating here and shouting "bullshit" now and then, why not try out your persuasive abilities by writing a column that requires an informed and focused viewpoint backed up by actual research? That way readers could test the veracity of your ideas as well as your honesty in terms of having a good faith discussion.
Outrage fatigue probably accounts for why a good chunk of the people I talk to, haven't a clue about all the speech infringements happening. They don't know about the Facebook or Twitter files - no idea. People have retreated into the usual distractions, like entertainment, sports etc. It's hard to blame them in one sense. There's only so much one's mental health can handle. But something that really needs to be underlined is that you really only believe in freedom of speech if you believe in it for views you despise. As I wrote recently: Recall the now ‘quaint’ old maxim “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?). Alas, such sentiments appear out of vogue, replaced instead by notions like “cancel culture,” “shadow banning” and “de-platforming.”
I for one fully endorse that maxim. I admit to distracting myself late in an evening with light reading or television show, but more out of loss and grief. In fact, many find my following politics, science and such depressing. I consider it food for thought. I'm not tying myself to the steps of the capital because I honestly feel that time has come and gone. I'm at an age where I'm "the interested observer," to quote Ram Das. And I'm ok with that.
MissAnne: you and I would be a sight to behold tied to the steps of the capital! I’m an old girl who delights in thinking of herself as “ungovernable.” Please reconsider your resignation to “interested observer” status.
If I could go to DC with a bunch of other old bats who remember 'the good old days' LOL, I would consider doing it .
How's about a million Granny March?
I’m in but Will need a ride from PNW. Drop all the D & R shite. This is about 1A! Our freedom of speech.
I'm PNW too, how about we car pool? LOL!
I could see it now, Grannies up and down Pennsylvania Ave marching in their best clothes and showing people pics of their grandkids.
I just dare the police to interfere.
Not sure what you'd consider finest clothing, but I'd be in jeans and a Megaton T-shirt. 😎
Oh, honey! Been there, done that. Been arrested for civil disobedience a number of times. Marched till my feet were blistered and my voice hoarse. Never say never, but brain surgery and degenerative cervical myelopathy HAVE slowed me down a step or two. Most who know me still consider me a fearless badass, and as rebellious as ever, which I wear as a badge of honor. Count me in for a Granny March: May as well go out swingin!
That’s the American spirit!
Is there room for any Grandpas too?
You sly dog 😉
Interesting that you used the vague term "speech infringements", and not (for example) "freedom of speech".
The Twitter Files is a bunch of bullshit spun up by Elon Musk to retroactively justify his insane impulse buy of Twitter. The Facebook Files isn't a thing... you can't make a scandal out of thin air just by appending "Files" to something.
The status quo has not changed on this issue. The internet has forced a lot of individuals and organizations to take explicitly censorious stances (what legitimate business wants a hand in propping up a shit pile like the Gray Zone?), but it's not like we're exiting some utopia of unbounded expression where anyone could say anything to any number of people without consequence.
Edit to add: "your right to say it" is in no way infringed by, for example, GoFundMe refusing to host fundraisers for whacky Putin-apologist media outlets. That's *their* freedom of speech being upheld; specifically, their freedom to not provide support or amplification for a message they don't agree with. What you're arguing against *is* freedom of expression.
I said "speech infringements" because there is, in fact, a whole spectrum of actions at play ranging from minor, such as the deletion of a comment to outright banning. (The former happened to me a couple of years back on Facebook for the sin of linking to a Chomsky interview on Russiagate. There's an "explicitly censorious stance" for you; some programmed dweeb in a cubicle who'd bought into four years of Maddow's bullshit deciding I needed a content slap, though more likely it was the "all knowing" algorithm).
My point was not about whether or not GoFundMe has the right to choose to politicize economic services. They do, obviously - just as consumers have the right to boycott. The real threat here is when government pressures Big Tech to suppress certain views (coincidentally they happen to run counter to their own narratives).
So I was really addressing the broader picture - which is not "bullshit." It's actually happening, as Taibbi's extensive reporting on these matters reveals. If you take the time to get into the weeds by reading or listening to these reports, the interplay between these powerful entities is fascinating, nuanced, even sometimes nonsensical, though the overall trend is towards centralizing control.
This is not about Elon Musk's motives or what one thinks of the Gray Zone. Nor is it about content moderation - which of course is necessary, the law being a good starting point as to when some "speech" should, and often is, deleted.
This is about a labyrinth alliance of government agencies, NGOs and political elites — working in concert with Big Tech — to suppress views that run counter to the accepted "groupthink" on a host of issues.
It's an insidious trend across the West. For instance, as British writer Ricky of Councilestatemedia wrote recently: "Anti-imperialist website Mint Press News has had its TikTok account deleted without warning or explanation. This comes after it had previously between de-platformed from PayPal and had its money withheld, with apparent involvement from the US and British governments." In other words, a censorship industrial complex.
Anyone who cares about ensuring a free marketplace of ideas should be alarmed at this state of affairs. Some care. Some do not. Many have understandably retreated into their own cocoons, which was my other point.
"I said "speech infringements" because there is, in fact, a whole spectrum of actions at play ranging from minor, such as the deletion of a comment to outright banning."
Right, but it's not an "infringement" when Facebook or GoFundMe kicks someone out for pissing in the pool. Your description was straightforwardly wrong.
"Anti-imperialist website Mint Press News has had its TikTok account deleted without warning or explanation. This comes after it had previously between de-platformed from PayPal and had its money withheld, with apparent involvement from the US and British governments."
The weasel words "apparent involvement" are doing a lot of work here. Also, this quote emphasizes their "anti-imperialist" stance (ironic since the US and Britain aren't imperialist anymore), but conveniently ignores that they run apologetics for Russia, one of the few nations actively engaging in imperialism in the 21st century.
"So I was really addressing the broader picture - which is not "bullshit." It's actually happening, as Taibbi's extensive reporting on these matters reveals."
I'm sorry, but I *have* been in the weeds (I've been subscribed and reading this substack practically since it launched), and it is almost entirely bullshit, spin, and fabrication. If you just read everything uncritically, it's easy to follow along with the narrative... as soon as you start asking questions like "does this email really mean what Matt claims it does?", you realize that you're relying entirely on the honesty of the author to vouch for the validity of the worldview he presents.
The thing is, Matt has every incentive in the universe to shred the credibility of mainstream media and Democrats: practically his entire audience are right-wingers at this point, and the remainder are almost entirely the kind of "left-wingers" who find crackpots like RFK Jr. and Alex Berenson credible. Moreover, he was essentially ejected from mainstream media because of his coverage of the Trump/Russia investigation and fiasco, so you'd be hard-pressed to find someone less credibly objective on issues like these.
"Anyone who cares about ensuring a free marketplace of ideas should be alarmed at this state of affairs."
Bullshit. Anyone who cares about ensuring a free marketplace of ideas should be overjoyed to see propaganda-spewing rags like Mint Press and Grayzone deamplified and publicly shamed. Disinformation is a censorship tool, whether you or Matt Taibbi realize it or not.
Rather than go through point by point where I disagree, I suggest you write your own Substack. You seem very adamant in your opinions. Rather than simply pontificating here and shouting "bullshit" now and then, why not try out your persuasive abilities by writing a column that requires an informed and focused viewpoint backed up by actual research? That way readers could test the veracity of your ideas as well as your honesty in terms of having a good faith discussion.
Where DO you get your news? Straight from Debbie Wassermann Schultz? LOL!!!
WOW that is a dated reference