The following cartoon was sketched in 2018.
..............................................................................
From: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:33 PM
To: applebaumanne@washpost.com; Fred.Hiatt@washpost.com
Subject: Re: CENSORSHIP or THE FIRST AMENDMENT, Not Both!
To Anne Applebaum, Washington Post,
The attached cartoon satirizes your take on controlling speech. When journalists become ideologues, they really cease being journalists. That is likely the prime problem concerning journalism today and is likely rarely if ever discussed at, for example, Columbia School of Journalism.
Is it not revealing that the Washington Post would never publish the cartoon, let alone the direct rebuttal I wrote, “Censorship OR the First Amendment, NOT Both!” Likely you didn’t even read it. Why not? Well…
G. Tod Slone, PhD (Université de Nantes, FR), aka P. Maudit,
Founding Editor (1998)
The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence
wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com
217 Commerce Rd.
Barnstable, MA 02630
From: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 8:24 AM
To: applebaumanne@washpost.com; Fred.Hiatt@washpost.com
Subject: CENSORSHIP or THE FIRST AMENDMENT, Not Both!
To Ann Applebaum, Columnist, and Fred Hiatt, Editorial Page Editor, Washington Post:
Would the Post publish the following counter-essay? Likely--very highly likely--it would not! Why not? Well, besides my being an unknown writer (i.e., a plebe), the essay directly challenges the Post's evident pro-censorship stance. In any case, if you deign to read it, perhaps it might provoke reflection, that is, if you could somehow open your minds to reflection beyond the wall of ideology. BTW, Elizabeth Lund is featured with others on the front cover of the current issue of The American Dissident (See http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2018/11/tyehimba-jess.html).
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone, PhD (Université de Nantes, FR), aka P. Maudit,
Founding Editor (1998)
The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence
wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com
217 Commerce Rd.
Barnstable, MA 02630
Censorship OR the First Amendment, NOT Both!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
—Juvenal
Unsurprisingly, Washington Post journalist Anne Applebaum wrote a column calling for increased censorship, though of course not quite putting it that way: “We have learned a lot about online disinformation — and we are doing nothing.” PC in general is a call for increased censorship.
Proponents of censorship like Applebaum seem always to argue that somehow they’re not proponents of censorship… likely because, in essence, even they somehow, deep down, know that censorship, friend of autocracy, is the enemy of democracy. Censorship demands higher-than-thou censors like holy inquisitors, imams, or better yet tech CEOs like Zuckerberg and Dorsey.
Proponents will generally not come right out and argue they favor censorship. Instead, they will play word games in an effort to avoid the term and appear righteous. “Control of information,” “calls for regulation,” “algorithms,” “monitor,” and “taken down” are terms used by Applebaum, who argues that “political leaders” (i.e., political prevaricating hacks, left and right-wing) should “take control of the information…” and thus essentially replace the First Amendment, though unsurprisingly she does not mention the First Amendment in her article at all. Well, she does tack the term “anarchy” on to “information,” in an effort to deflect from the reality of “censorship.” Control of “information anarchy” is simply another term for censorship of information. Applebaum thus argues that politicians should determine what is “anarchy” and what is not “anarchy” in an effort to eliminate the “information anarchy that will eventually consume them all.” That is insane because that “information anarchy” can easily be interpreted as information that will eventually out them all as the lying hacks they tend to be, and that ought to be viewed as a positive, not a negative.
Censorship inevitably means more power to the censors. Always there will be flaws in the argumentation of enemies of freedom of speech, those would-be censors and proponents of censorship, who, of course, will somehow argue they’re not in favor of censorship. Often, it is those with voice who want to make certain those without voice remain without voice. Applebaum notes, “Facebook and Twitter have both hired people to monitor their sites for ‘hate speech’ — a term with an extremely wide range of definitions — to dubious effect.” Yet she does not stipulate what that “dubious effect” was or is, nor does she mention who the people hired (e.g., left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center), nor who the people banned and censored (e.g., right-wing Jones, Spencer, and Geller). By not mentioning the latter, she participates in their burial… and the burial of freedom of speech, a term she also does not mention in her article. In fact, how can one not mention freedom of speech (i.e., “information anarchy”) in an article pushing for control of speech?
Applebaum argues, “We know how social media increases polarization, how fact-checking only reaches a narrow audience, how the lack of regulation enables false and opaque political advertisements, how algorithms favor angry and extreme views.” On the other hand, however, we know how communist/socialist regimes decreased polarization (e.g., Pravda and the gulag archipelago). We also know how so-called “fact-checking” can become highly partisan and thus highly unreliable. Why does Applebaum fail to mention these things? Moreover, she fails to note just how highly subjective terms like “angry,” “extreme views,” and “false and opaque political advertisements” can be. Must I spell it out, as in extreme for thee, might be normal for me, and vice versa?
Oddly, Applebaum does not mention Trump in her article, though she does evoke Russia, Russia, Russia, as in “Facebook and Twitter have taken down some Russian-origin accounts.” But again she fails to mention non-Russian-origin accounts (i.,e., American) that have been censored, uh, “taken down” or how little if any effect at all those accounts had in swaying the Trump/Hillary election. Why? Applebaum notes, “After analyzing 2.5 million tweets and 6,986 Facebook pages, the Oxford Internet Institute has just found that the amount of biased, hyperbolic and conspiratorial “junk news” in circulation is actually greater than it was in 2016.” Again, she fails to grasp the very crux of why freedom of speech needs to be very broad and very inclusive: the high subjectivity of the terms “biased,” “hyperbolic,” and “conspiratorial junk news”! Facts and reason can easily be dismissed as biased, hyperbolic and conspiratorial junk news! Criticism of Islam is a good example of that. Also, might the Institute be akin to SPLC, which has been proven to be highly biased? Moreover, “junk news” (i.e., fake news) should be countered by real factual news, not by more biased news and speech regulations (i.e., restrictions).
Hazy, undefined, secretive algorithms have become the new tools of censors. But Applebaum doesn’t quite put it that way. Instead, she evokes Russia, Russia, but not China: “Even after being told many times about the problem, YouTube — which is owned by Google — still allows its algorithms to be manipulated by Russia Today, the Russian state broadcasting company.” Eliminate the censor’s algorithms and eliminate the algorithm-manipulation problem! Creating algorithms that bot-eliminate right-wing opinions is certainly not democratic in nature. It is autocratic. Applebaum suggests, “YouTube, and others, could change their algorithms so that known sources of disinformation don’t keep floating to the top.” Well, where has she been with that regard? They’ve already been doing that. But who determines what “disinformation” is and what it is not? Sadly, the faceless bureaucrats or rather corpo-rats at YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter et al make the determinations. Applebaum argues that “Calls for regulation without censorship have been made by many people and many groups — it’s just that there is simply no political will to make an [sic] real change”? But “calls for regulation” are calls for restrictions which are calls for censorship. Only twisted minds can manage to believe that speech regulations (i.e., restrictions) are somehow still free speech…
No comments:
Post a Comment