CENSORSHIP - REFLECTIONS OF A TWITTER EXILE
14/10/2021
I don't think I could have ever fully understood the meaning of censorship, in its subtle and not so subtle forms, until I found my own ideas being effectively still-born due to heavy-handed editorial interventions and most recently, a permanent termination of my Twitter account. I will not re-hash here the precise reason for these interventions, but I will say that
(1) they are based on a reasonable difference of opinion on contentious issues; and
(2) their net effect is to silence rational debate in the public square.
When you are confronted with editors who just want to play it safe and not question conventional wisdom or practices, you realise you are fighting a losing battle, because the infrastructure of a free media system is being squandered or reserved for only the "safe" opinions that can be blessed by "officialdom." When you see yourself and many others being squeezed out of a public sphere that is increasingly controlled by large multi-national corporations, for reasons that are at best tendentious, and often could be best described as "will to power," you realise that the idea of a vibrant public sphere is increasingly a fiction hopelessly removed from what we (at least in Europe and in social media) now have.
The net effect of so much censorship - whether it be of the subtle variety perpetrated by editors who wish to please their advertisers, or the more heavy-handed variety perpetrated by Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube - is to
(1) chill public debate, as participants with unpopular opinions self-censor to avoid the censor's wrath;
(2) impoverish both the process of public deliberation and its outcomes, as certain theories, perspectives, and evidence are dismissed pre-emptively rather than being subject to rational scrutiny; while other theories, perspectives, and evidence are automatically assumed to be true.
(3) create an erroneous impression that triumphant opinions have triumphed by their own merits over rival views, when they have only triumphed because they are protected by censors who constantly block challenges from alternative perspectives. Just look at how the mainstream media uncritically aped whatever they were told by a certain current of pro-lockdown, pro-coercion scientific thinking, while dismissing or ignoring intelligent and well qualified dissenters.
"Fact-checking" is now pervasive. Anyone who has the remotest idea of how knowledge really works would realise that the notion of appointing a special class of persons equipped to arbitrate "facts" affirmed in the public square is utterly naive and toxic for honest and informed public debate.
So can we fight for a renewed public square with genuine diversity of opinion and genuinely open debate? Of course we can. Perhaps the more pertinent question is, what are the best strategies for winning this battle? And what is our prospect of success?
14/10/2021
I don't think I could have ever fully understood the meaning of censorship, in its subtle and not so subtle forms, until I found my own ideas being effectively still-born due to heavy-handed editorial interventions and most recently, a permanent termination of my Twitter account. I will not re-hash here the precise reason for these interventions, but I will say that
(1) they are based on a reasonable difference of opinion on contentious issues; and
(2) their net effect is to silence rational debate in the public square.
When you are confronted with editors who just want to play it safe and not question conventional wisdom or practices, you realise you are fighting a losing battle, because the infrastructure of a free media system is being squandered or reserved for only the "safe" opinions that can be blessed by "officialdom." When you see yourself and many others being squeezed out of a public sphere that is increasingly controlled by large multi-national corporations, for reasons that are at best tendentious, and often could be best described as "will to power," you realise that the idea of a vibrant public sphere is increasingly a fiction hopelessly removed from what we (at least in Europe and in social media) now have.
The net effect of so much censorship - whether it be of the subtle variety perpetrated by editors who wish to please their advertisers, or the more heavy-handed variety perpetrated by Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube - is to
(1) chill public debate, as participants with unpopular opinions self-censor to avoid the censor's wrath;
(2) impoverish both the process of public deliberation and its outcomes, as certain theories, perspectives, and evidence are dismissed pre-emptively rather than being subject to rational scrutiny; while other theories, perspectives, and evidence are automatically assumed to be true.
(3) create an erroneous impression that triumphant opinions have triumphed by their own merits over rival views, when they have only triumphed because they are protected by censors who constantly block challenges from alternative perspectives. Just look at how the mainstream media uncritically aped whatever they were told by a certain current of pro-lockdown, pro-coercion scientific thinking, while dismissing or ignoring intelligent and well qualified dissenters.
"Fact-checking" is now pervasive. Anyone who has the remotest idea of how knowledge really works would realise that the notion of appointing a special class of persons equipped to arbitrate "facts" affirmed in the public square is utterly naive and toxic for honest and informed public debate.
So can we fight for a renewed public square with genuine diversity of opinion and genuinely open debate? Of course we can. Perhaps the more pertinent question is, what are the best strategies for winning this battle? And what is our prospect of success?
