Biased and misguided online censorship is a genuine problem. However, popular claims about a sinister "censorship industrial complex" are hysterical, conspiratorial, self-serving, and dangerous.
While I agree with you that the term “censorship industrial complex” is more attention-grabbing than accurate, I think the concerns raised by anti-censorship writers are largely correct and extremely important. It is obviously a play on words of the term “military-industrial complex” often used by the Left. I don’t think the term “industrial” applies as it has nothing to do with manufacturing or hardware.
Remember that they are trying to do research in a low information environment where none of the parties involved want to be transparent. In such an environment, it is easy to get some details wrong. It is also quite likely that the writers are unearthing only a small portion of the censorship.
In terms of its impact on society, censorship by the federal government directly and censorship by private social media companies that may or may not be coordinating with the federal government is just as bad. I also think that it is pretty clear that the federal government is deliberately laundering censorship via non- profits. Also the same narrative is being propagated by traditional media companies.
It is pretty clear that there is voluntary cooperation between media, social media, the federal government and the Democratic Party to amplify some speech and throttle others.
It might be more accurately called a “public/private information management network.” Or you can just call it ideological group-think.
And, yes, the federal government should have nothing to do with it, and any involvement does violate the First Amendment as far as I am concerned.
And in general I think the reason why what you call the “establishment” is losing credibility is because of their own actions, not due to over-zealous rhetoric by their opponents. I too would rather reform institutions than destroy them, but you cannot reform something if you are not allowed to identify the problem first.
'The primary theory in this context is that the FBI and perhaps other government agencies deliberately lied about the laptop as a way of getting social media companies to censor it.'
Is this the primary theory? I thought the main allegation was that panic about "Russian interference" was being stoked and that led to hypervigilance and sloppy thinking and that led to the bad decisions around censoring the laptop story.
'and for what? To somewhat reduce exposure to a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop that is not particularly damaging to Joe Biden?'
I think this is, ironically, the thing that gives a ton of energy to the more sinister suspicions: in the minds of skeptics if "They" would go to such extreme lengths to try to suppress something that's merely mildly embarrassing it looks like a sign of something worse going on. If the response to the Post story had been "Yeah, Hunter Biden is probably a sleazy influence peddler, but the real problem is that this is pretty commonplace among the relatives of powerful politicians, and anyway it seems like Hunter's clients were getting ripped off because Joe mostly wasn't delivering on what Hunter was selling" it would have faded away. Instead it got spun as Russian Disinformation, at the lockstep way that became the conventional wisdom seemed like it had "all the hallmarks" of behind-the-scenes coordination.
I think the critics probably go too far, but it seems to me that you may also going a little far by demanding formal arrangements and active coordination. While it sounds sinister, the "Censorship Industrial Complex" seems to me like an intentional nod to the "Military Industrial Complex" that Eisenhower warned of -- not something conspiratorial, but rather an informal system of mutual backscratching that can develop its own internal momentum.
Regardless of the merits of the term, I am concerned there may be a too-cozy relationship between people in law enforcement and intelligence agencies (who would normally be bound by the First Amendment) and the "trust and safety" people at the social media companies, many of whom view the First Amendment as an annoying technicality that they are conveniently not bound by so they can "do the right thing" that their government colleagues aren't allowed to do. It isn't that Commissioner Gordon gives orders to Batman, it's that he tips Batman off to things he suspects but can't get a warrant to investigate -- in Batman stories that works out fine because both of them are good people mired in a somewhat corrupt system, but in general the constraints we put on law enforcement are there for a reason and it's not good if they end up disappearing in a blob of public/private-partnership coordination meetings. (And I think it would also be good if people at social media companies valued a culture of free expression on its own terms, not seeing it as legalistic thing that applies only to governments.)
Thank you for writing this post. I haven't read anything else on this topic that goes through the claims and counter-claims in such a clearheaded way. Mostly, I've read one-sided arguments filled with ad hominin attacks on the other side.
I subscribe to Taibbi's Substack, and have been deeply influenced by his writing. He was the first writer to help me articulate my growing sense of dis-ease with the collective response to Trump's presidency in the my Liberal/Academic milieu. I think that he is on to important cultural trends, and did good reporting on the Russiagate stuff. But I've been confused by his post-Twitter files writing about censorship. I don't understand the connections he makes between academic researchers, social network companies, the government, etc. Of course, critics who dismiss him as a right-wing grifter are no help in figuring it out. So, your even-handed evaluation is very helpful.
I am probably more concerned about establishment institutions than you are. I worry that they undermine the liberal/scientific intellectual virtues that they were established to protect more often than they support them. Taibbi's error may be in trying to tie a disturbing cultural consensus in liberal institutions to a government conspiracy that violates the first amendment -- in ways that the Supreme Court, or Trump, or somebody in government ought to be able to fix.
I don't think that that government conspiracy exists, but, as Mill argued in "On Liberty," cultural consensus often "practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."
Let’s not forget what Edward Snowden risked his life for. You don’t mention the vast surveillance state that he revealed to us. That was all classified and revealed in 2013. Is this not evidence of an information-collecting portion of a censorship industrial complex? Let’s imagine Trump or someone worse weaponizing these tools. Ten years have passed since those documents were revealed. What other classified programs, and secret courts exist that we’re unaware of?
Dan - Let’s set aside the whole “censorship industrial complex” issue. I don’t think it’s the most important First Amendment issue to be discussing. I don’t follow Shellenberger and Taibbi. Let’s talk about the most important issue: self-censorship. Let’s talk about queer, abnormal, extreme and extraordinary ideas. Why do some people believe queer things? And let’s examine the pressures that we put on each other to avoid understanding those queer ideas.
Why are you telling other Substack writers what they should or should not be writing about? Just can just write the article yourself, and let him write what he wants to write about.
You write: Nevertheless, nobody writing about the “censorship industrial complex” has provided any evidence that government representatives have demanded or coerced such platforms to agree with their censorship requests…
So, this is worth talking about. Why does demand and coerce have to be the standard? My reading of the First Amendment says nothing about this standard. It reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
If bureaucrats are applying pressure on citizens in favor of certain ideas, beliefs and habits are they not respecting one religion over another? How much pressure is too much pressure?
Let’s take the case of funding pressure. Public schools receive public funding. Is this not a clear case of “respecting an establishment of religion?” These schools are teaching DEI, climate alarmism and other ideas that seem to me “religious?”
I personally dislike people standing over me applying pressure concerning what I should read, think or say. Why can’t our standard be, no pressure at all, none of your business, leave us alone?
I just discovered your articles and appreciate your perspective.
I am intrigued that you acknowledge that Trump’s misinformation campaigns about election fraud constitute authoritarian attacks against democracy, but you also oppose some of the main methods - hard and soft censorship - the establishment uses to counter these attacks. I find myself wondering then what you think would be an appropriate, practical, and effective response to these misinformation campaigns?
I for one see these attacks as existential threats to American democracy. I think there is widespread (and warranted) skepticism that right now, educating the populace of the facts and hoping for the best is a sufficient response. No one likes censorship - I believe the people using it to fight these disinformation campaigns only turn to it as a last resort, and would agree with many of your criticisms. I’m interested to learn what you think is the right approach.
I'd wager that, given everything we know, the appropriate, practical and effective response to misinformation is to move beyond the post-political status quo of neoliberal governance to engage meaningfully in the work of ameliorating the social and political problems which lie at the root of the discontent which animates and makes misinformation appealing in the first place. This requires a return to politics (which is being forced upon us already, despite recent claims from leaders in the Democratic party that there is no lesson to be learned), and an acceptance that we are at the beginning of a long road toward re-legitimizing these institutions in the eyes of a population that has lost faith in them. Hard and soft censorship, on the other hand, are technocratic approaches which promise near-term effects (often at great political expense in the long term, as Dan has pointed out). Let's see if the left is able to make the shift.
"... I think the liberal establishment greatly exaggerates the impact of online misinformation and the gullibility of ordinary people."
Congratulations - and thank you - for a well-balanced post.
If I could find one major fault with it, it is that the study, nuance, and balance your post exemplifies, tends not to magnetize the masses. Thus I do not see you leading any large, popular, majority movement. Have you considered rabid appeals to instinct and emotion, along with exaggerating, demonizing, and creating enemies for your followers to fight against?
We the masses often tend to be ideological pendulums swinging too far one way or another (such as left-or-right groups you highlight). And instead of nuance, we seek (typically false) emotionally satisfying certainty. Matched with not only tribalism, but also the (typically inaccurate) feeling of being in the morally correct tribe.
Your quote I placed above may be quite right in the strictest sense of your misinformation topic.
However, based upon my decades of experience and non-fiction reading, as well as the work of many social scientists and philosophers, the overwhelming majority of the public accepts or embraces (on and off line) misinformation, and *is* gullible, writ large.
For example:
1. General political propaganda / information from U.S.A. political parties and their supporters that we should support their moral party, not the other, immoral parties.
2. The practiced positions of these parties worsening enormous sovereign debt, unfunded massive future liabilities for social welfare programs, the long term unsustainability of nuclear weapons ("Either they go, or we do.") as a tribalism defense strategy, habitually promoting family values *while* 8 billion humans rapidly ravage the environment and resources sustaining us all. Including having extinguished innumerable entire other species, while threatening over a million other species with extinction, so we can over propagate. Etcetera.
3. Combine those first two with the fact that an extremely large majority of the public *passively* (those eligible to vote or register to vote, but do not) or *actively* (with votes and or campaign cash) support such irresponsible parties.
So while I suspect you are correct about specific pieces of misinformation, I remain convinced that *thematic* misinformation, writ large, plays an absolutely massive role in influencing almost the entire public into ill-advised socio-political decisions.
Because misinformation is what almost everyone wants to believe or go along with: we support political, religious, and other leaders who mirror our willful ignorance, irrational biases, and common delusions.
"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone lost public office thereby."
- attributed to Henry Louis Mencken, 1880-1956, U.S.A. journalist, essayist, satirist, cultural critic, philosopher, and scholar of American English
While I think your framing has merit, I think the counter consideration is how rapidly we should expect people to become "less wrong." If attention and inattention will always include motivational elements, then won't that need to be incorporated into our expectations?
If, for example, the issue of climate change is the rate of change being dangerous relative to the rate of adaptation in response, then how should we communicate this? Should we simplifly or embellish the threat to motivate action?
To me, it should occur to my "liberal-by-nature" fellows that a similar principle applies to those who are "conservative-by-nature." That they can only be expected to change their mind so quickly, and certainly not on every wild whiff, of which there are many, of liberal panic.
It's probably even worth noting and admitting that among the reasons liberals arrive at important conclusions first is the motivation to find some convenient, moralizing issues which misdirect from the many faults we nevertheless have. We go big on "narratives," and sometimes that backfires dramatically. It's neither malice nor incompetence on our part, but our flavor of many of the general issues you have laid out.
So delightful of you to reply, William of Hammock.
I like the points you raise here, whilst I am in the middle of filling out my election ballot.
I am reluctant to say which President / V.P. ticket I blacked in, as my impression is they *all* substantially represent, as you note, "...the many faults we nevertheless have." I *will*, however, let the cat out of the bag that it is not for either major party.
Largely because very large groups, such as politics, religion, and informal groups / cultures with similar sexual morals, tend to appeal to the masses who have expended average or below average intellectual effort--not the well-informed minuscule minority.
"It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that."
- attributed to Godfrey Harold Hardy, 1877-1947, English mathematician
The less well known races on my ballot have only Democrat and Republican candidates. And while I strongly disagree with Democrats, I refuse to cast a vote for a fascist party repeatedly trying to steal democracy - and my rights - with a presidential candidate who breaks all known records for factual, criminal, and intellectual dishonesty. It seems in the local races, I am being forced into the black / white, right / wrong, Democrat / Republican, typically false dichotomy.
My overarching philosophy that best replies to your points has original wording. Though there is a good chance my memory fails, and it just rewords someone else's philosophy:
Humanity chooses to learn slower than the rate of destruction we create.
E.g.:
"We are in a race between education and catastrophe."
- attributed to Herbert George Wells, 1866-1946, English writer
I dislike the fact that I agree with the words that come out of leftist mouths in their better moments. But I think that, regardless of who is right, to be right for the wrong reasons is one step behind being wrong for the right reasons.
So I'll stand by anyone who cares or at least wants to care badly enough to struggle with their apathy.
Therein lies the catch. The change needed requires effort, the effort requires at least some minimal amount of joint motivation, and we have spent the digital age splitting motivational hairs, generating noise and exhausting ourselves in performatively narrating the progress loudly.
Unlike dark clouds with silver linings, people actually have meaningful leverage over this weather... and metaphorically speaking, we are kinda firing hurricanes at one another.
Great piece. I'm a free speech fundamentalist but I have been suspicious of the Greenwald/Taibbi crowd's grasp on the facts for a long time, even though I mostly agree with their values. This illuminated things a lot for me.
On the laptop issue, it does seem likely that there are individual people at the FBI who are morally culpable for not leaking accurate information to the media that would have verified the laptop and exposed the illegitimacy of the censorship. But a conspiracy seems unlikely for the reasons you cite.
Shellenberger's intervention into the Irish hate speech debate was really hysterical. No knowledge of the Irish and European legal contexts involved. Musk was similar. I hate the "imported culture war' trope popular with the establishment here, but it did feel like the issue was being exploited to serve narratives useful further afield.
Thanks for your write-up at last on this issue, it's certainly extensively argued. I find the comment section discouraging, so I'll forgo a detailed reply. Let me just toss in a point of information:
It is not difficult to technically verify the authenticity of many of the emails in the Hunter Biden laptop. This was in fact done immediately, and here is one guide by an expert on how to do it:
Now, as a technical person, I understand that the level of comprehension in the media is almost literally unable to grasp that playing Russian Roulette can fail on the first shot, or that nobody can say with certainty which shot will fail (this is a probability joke). Nonetheless, the validity of key material was never an objective question, but much more a real example of "social construction of truth" question.
"...but their flaws pale in comparison with the torrent of self-serving lies and demonstrable falsehoods that come from figures like Trump, Elon Musk, and Tucker Carlson."
How do you square this with your idea that "fake news" is relatively rare? If a former (and potentially future!) President, the richest man in the world and the largest media figure in the world ate spreading "demonstrable falsehoods," then surely fake news must be fairly common!
One minor thing is that the anti censorship framing you use has a lot to say for it. And I too would prefer if the movement just called themselves what they are, anti-reactionary propaganda. But it has to be noted that for all the legitimate grievances of the MAGA base, the anti disinformation folks are legitimately fighting against an attempt to end the republic, not just pro up the status quo.
To the point of legitimate grievances, I'd be interested what you think from a slightly broader view. It's become common to talk about education polarization. But I prefer Picketty's framing here where the issue is that across Europe and the anglosphere, the left parties were taken over by what he calls the Brahmin left: upper middle and upper class folks mostly with post grad degrees who are socially liberal and vaguely sympathetic with the downtrodden but fundamentally are winners in the current system so oppose big changes that would disadvantage them (us). So with the plutocrats and "merchant right" in charge of the right parties and the Brahmin left in charge of the left parties, the working and middle class had representation nowhere. Leading eventually to the Trump/Le Pen/Boris uprisings and in process reshuffling. I'd be interested in your take there.
Considering the last paragraph which is the only thing I have a different view,the most authoritarian American regime wasn't the 1st Trump presidency but the one we have now,especially during covid outbreaks.And while Trumps lies can be dangerous,with instances such as potentially increasing hatred against immigrants,he isn't responsible for the loss of institutional trust democracy relies on.Consider these two videos,and countless other examples which when accumulated can damage institutions just as much as capitol riots on baseless lies
Furthermore, the constant stream of lies and attacks on institutions, norms and values that Trump and his MAGA army have subjected the US population to were not confined to his presidency. This corrosive approach has been constant since Trump entered in the political scene.
“they are ultimately private companies that should be free to set whatever content moderation policies they want.” This might be a weak point in your argument. Are they as private as you believe them to be considering intellectual property legislation, lobbying efforts to reduce competition through anti-competitive regulation, government subsidies to create jobs in certain states, and in the case of so-called private universities receive a great deal of public financing? My guess is that you’re 3/4 correct, but it’s worth considering my perspective. Lobbying efforts by private companies reduce market competition making companies a bit more like publicly protected oligopolies.
Here’s a perspective on public and private universities that you might want to look at as well. This is a stronger case than the one I made above. There are almost no private universities in America.
While I agree with you that the term “censorship industrial complex” is more attention-grabbing than accurate, I think the concerns raised by anti-censorship writers are largely correct and extremely important. It is obviously a play on words of the term “military-industrial complex” often used by the Left. I don’t think the term “industrial” applies as it has nothing to do with manufacturing or hardware.
Remember that they are trying to do research in a low information environment where none of the parties involved want to be transparent. In such an environment, it is easy to get some details wrong. It is also quite likely that the writers are unearthing only a small portion of the censorship.
In terms of its impact on society, censorship by the federal government directly and censorship by private social media companies that may or may not be coordinating with the federal government is just as bad. I also think that it is pretty clear that the federal government is deliberately laundering censorship via non- profits. Also the same narrative is being propagated by traditional media companies.
It is pretty clear that there is voluntary cooperation between media, social media, the federal government and the Democratic Party to amplify some speech and throttle others.
It might be more accurately called a “public/private information management network.” Or you can just call it ideological group-think.
And, yes, the federal government should have nothing to do with it, and any involvement does violate the First Amendment as far as I am concerned.
And in general I think the reason why what you call the “establishment” is losing credibility is because of their own actions, not due to over-zealous rhetoric by their opponents. I too would rather reform institutions than destroy them, but you cannot reform something if you are not allowed to identify the problem first.
'The primary theory in this context is that the FBI and perhaps other government agencies deliberately lied about the laptop as a way of getting social media companies to censor it.'
Is this the primary theory? I thought the main allegation was that panic about "Russian interference" was being stoked and that led to hypervigilance and sloppy thinking and that led to the bad decisions around censoring the laptop story.
'and for what? To somewhat reduce exposure to a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop that is not particularly damaging to Joe Biden?'
I think this is, ironically, the thing that gives a ton of energy to the more sinister suspicions: in the minds of skeptics if "They" would go to such extreme lengths to try to suppress something that's merely mildly embarrassing it looks like a sign of something worse going on. If the response to the Post story had been "Yeah, Hunter Biden is probably a sleazy influence peddler, but the real problem is that this is pretty commonplace among the relatives of powerful politicians, and anyway it seems like Hunter's clients were getting ripped off because Joe mostly wasn't delivering on what Hunter was selling" it would have faded away. Instead it got spun as Russian Disinformation, at the lockstep way that became the conventional wisdom seemed like it had "all the hallmarks" of behind-the-scenes coordination.
I think the critics probably go too far, but it seems to me that you may also going a little far by demanding formal arrangements and active coordination. While it sounds sinister, the "Censorship Industrial Complex" seems to me like an intentional nod to the "Military Industrial Complex" that Eisenhower warned of -- not something conspiratorial, but rather an informal system of mutual backscratching that can develop its own internal momentum.
Regardless of the merits of the term, I am concerned there may be a too-cozy relationship between people in law enforcement and intelligence agencies (who would normally be bound by the First Amendment) and the "trust and safety" people at the social media companies, many of whom view the First Amendment as an annoying technicality that they are conveniently not bound by so they can "do the right thing" that their government colleagues aren't allowed to do. It isn't that Commissioner Gordon gives orders to Batman, it's that he tips Batman off to things he suspects but can't get a warrant to investigate -- in Batman stories that works out fine because both of them are good people mired in a somewhat corrupt system, but in general the constraints we put on law enforcement are there for a reason and it's not good if they end up disappearing in a blob of public/private-partnership coordination meetings. (And I think it would also be good if people at social media companies valued a culture of free expression on its own terms, not seeing it as legalistic thing that applies only to governments.)
Thank you for writing this post. I haven't read anything else on this topic that goes through the claims and counter-claims in such a clearheaded way. Mostly, I've read one-sided arguments filled with ad hominin attacks on the other side.
I subscribe to Taibbi's Substack, and have been deeply influenced by his writing. He was the first writer to help me articulate my growing sense of dis-ease with the collective response to Trump's presidency in the my Liberal/Academic milieu. I think that he is on to important cultural trends, and did good reporting on the Russiagate stuff. But I've been confused by his post-Twitter files writing about censorship. I don't understand the connections he makes between academic researchers, social network companies, the government, etc. Of course, critics who dismiss him as a right-wing grifter are no help in figuring it out. So, your even-handed evaluation is very helpful.
I am probably more concerned about establishment institutions than you are. I worry that they undermine the liberal/scientific intellectual virtues that they were established to protect more often than they support them. Taibbi's error may be in trying to tie a disturbing cultural consensus in liberal institutions to a government conspiracy that violates the first amendment -- in ways that the Supreme Court, or Trump, or somebody in government ought to be able to fix.
I don't think that that government conspiracy exists, but, as Mill argued in "On Liberty," cultural consensus often "practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."
Let’s not forget what Edward Snowden risked his life for. You don’t mention the vast surveillance state that he revealed to us. That was all classified and revealed in 2013. Is this not evidence of an information-collecting portion of a censorship industrial complex? Let’s imagine Trump or someone worse weaponizing these tools. Ten years have passed since those documents were revealed. What other classified programs, and secret courts exist that we’re unaware of?
Though only a cursory internet search, the most recent figure I could find:
"In 2018, some newspapers reported that the Trump administration requested $81.1 billion for the 2019 black budget."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_budget
Dan - Let’s set aside the whole “censorship industrial complex” issue. I don’t think it’s the most important First Amendment issue to be discussing. I don’t follow Shellenberger and Taibbi. Let’s talk about the most important issue: self-censorship. Let’s talk about queer, abnormal, extreme and extraordinary ideas. Why do some people believe queer things? And let’s examine the pressures that we put on each other to avoid understanding those queer ideas.
https://substack.com/@scottgibb/p-151061071
Why are you telling other Substack writers what they should or should not be writing about? Just can just write the article yourself, and let him write what he wants to write about.
Why are you telling other Substack writers what to write about?
I am not doing so. I was wondering why you don’t just write the article yourself.
Perhaps I invited Dan to read my article? Perhaps I encouraged him to write a similar article?
You write: Nevertheless, nobody writing about the “censorship industrial complex” has provided any evidence that government representatives have demanded or coerced such platforms to agree with their censorship requests…
So, this is worth talking about. Why does demand and coerce have to be the standard? My reading of the First Amendment says nothing about this standard. It reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
If bureaucrats are applying pressure on citizens in favor of certain ideas, beliefs and habits are they not respecting one religion over another? How much pressure is too much pressure?
Let’s take the case of funding pressure. Public schools receive public funding. Is this not a clear case of “respecting an establishment of religion?” These schools are teaching DEI, climate alarmism and other ideas that seem to me “religious?”
I personally dislike people standing over me applying pressure concerning what I should read, think or say. Why can’t our standard be, no pressure at all, none of your business, leave us alone?
https://substack.com/@scottgibb/p-141328011
I just discovered your articles and appreciate your perspective.
I am intrigued that you acknowledge that Trump’s misinformation campaigns about election fraud constitute authoritarian attacks against democracy, but you also oppose some of the main methods - hard and soft censorship - the establishment uses to counter these attacks. I find myself wondering then what you think would be an appropriate, practical, and effective response to these misinformation campaigns?
I for one see these attacks as existential threats to American democracy. I think there is widespread (and warranted) skepticism that right now, educating the populace of the facts and hoping for the best is a sufficient response. No one likes censorship - I believe the people using it to fight these disinformation campaigns only turn to it as a last resort, and would agree with many of your criticisms. I’m interested to learn what you think is the right approach.
I'd wager that, given everything we know, the appropriate, practical and effective response to misinformation is to move beyond the post-political status quo of neoliberal governance to engage meaningfully in the work of ameliorating the social and political problems which lie at the root of the discontent which animates and makes misinformation appealing in the first place. This requires a return to politics (which is being forced upon us already, despite recent claims from leaders in the Democratic party that there is no lesson to be learned), and an acceptance that we are at the beginning of a long road toward re-legitimizing these institutions in the eyes of a population that has lost faith in them. Hard and soft censorship, on the other hand, are technocratic approaches which promise near-term effects (often at great political expense in the long term, as Dan has pointed out). Let's see if the left is able to make the shift.
"... I think the liberal establishment greatly exaggerates the impact of online misinformation and the gullibility of ordinary people."
Congratulations - and thank you - for a well-balanced post.
If I could find one major fault with it, it is that the study, nuance, and balance your post exemplifies, tends not to magnetize the masses. Thus I do not see you leading any large, popular, majority movement. Have you considered rabid appeals to instinct and emotion, along with exaggerating, demonizing, and creating enemies for your followers to fight against?
We the masses often tend to be ideological pendulums swinging too far one way or another (such as left-or-right groups you highlight). And instead of nuance, we seek (typically false) emotionally satisfying certainty. Matched with not only tribalism, but also the (typically inaccurate) feeling of being in the morally correct tribe.
Your quote I placed above may be quite right in the strictest sense of your misinformation topic.
However, based upon my decades of experience and non-fiction reading, as well as the work of many social scientists and philosophers, the overwhelming majority of the public accepts or embraces (on and off line) misinformation, and *is* gullible, writ large.
For example:
1. General political propaganda / information from U.S.A. political parties and their supporters that we should support their moral party, not the other, immoral parties.
2. The practiced positions of these parties worsening enormous sovereign debt, unfunded massive future liabilities for social welfare programs, the long term unsustainability of nuclear weapons ("Either they go, or we do.") as a tribalism defense strategy, habitually promoting family values *while* 8 billion humans rapidly ravage the environment and resources sustaining us all. Including having extinguished innumerable entire other species, while threatening over a million other species with extinction, so we can over propagate. Etcetera.
3. Combine those first two with the fact that an extremely large majority of the public *passively* (those eligible to vote or register to vote, but do not) or *actively* (with votes and or campaign cash) support such irresponsible parties.
So while I suspect you are correct about specific pieces of misinformation, I remain convinced that *thematic* misinformation, writ large, plays an absolutely massive role in influencing almost the entire public into ill-advised socio-political decisions.
Because misinformation is what almost everyone wants to believe or go along with: we support political, religious, and other leaders who mirror our willful ignorance, irrational biases, and common delusions.
"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone lost public office thereby."
- attributed to Henry Louis Mencken, 1880-1956, U.S.A. journalist, essayist, satirist, cultural critic, philosopher, and scholar of American English
While I think your framing has merit, I think the counter consideration is how rapidly we should expect people to become "less wrong." If attention and inattention will always include motivational elements, then won't that need to be incorporated into our expectations?
If, for example, the issue of climate change is the rate of change being dangerous relative to the rate of adaptation in response, then how should we communicate this? Should we simplifly or embellish the threat to motivate action?
To me, it should occur to my "liberal-by-nature" fellows that a similar principle applies to those who are "conservative-by-nature." That they can only be expected to change their mind so quickly, and certainly not on every wild whiff, of which there are many, of liberal panic.
It's probably even worth noting and admitting that among the reasons liberals arrive at important conclusions first is the motivation to find some convenient, moralizing issues which misdirect from the many faults we nevertheless have. We go big on "narratives," and sometimes that backfires dramatically. It's neither malice nor incompetence on our part, but our flavor of many of the general issues you have laid out.
So delightful of you to reply, William of Hammock.
I like the points you raise here, whilst I am in the middle of filling out my election ballot.
I am reluctant to say which President / V.P. ticket I blacked in, as my impression is they *all* substantially represent, as you note, "...the many faults we nevertheless have." I *will*, however, let the cat out of the bag that it is not for either major party.
Largely because very large groups, such as politics, religion, and informal groups / cultures with similar sexual morals, tend to appeal to the masses who have expended average or below average intellectual effort--not the well-informed minuscule minority.
"It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that."
- attributed to Godfrey Harold Hardy, 1877-1947, English mathematician
The less well known races on my ballot have only Democrat and Republican candidates. And while I strongly disagree with Democrats, I refuse to cast a vote for a fascist party repeatedly trying to steal democracy - and my rights - with a presidential candidate who breaks all known records for factual, criminal, and intellectual dishonesty. It seems in the local races, I am being forced into the black / white, right / wrong, Democrat / Republican, typically false dichotomy.
My overarching philosophy that best replies to your points has original wording. Though there is a good chance my memory fails, and it just rewords someone else's philosophy:
Humanity chooses to learn slower than the rate of destruction we create.
E.g.:
"We are in a race between education and catastrophe."
- attributed to Herbert George Wells, 1866-1946, English writer
Cheers.
I dislike the fact that I agree with the words that come out of leftist mouths in their better moments. But I think that, regardless of who is right, to be right for the wrong reasons is one step behind being wrong for the right reasons.
So I'll stand by anyone who cares or at least wants to care badly enough to struggle with their apathy.
Cheers!
I commend your socially fluid diplomacy, as well as your intellectually fluid willingness to see a silver lining in every dark cloud.
But just remember what most forget:
Every silver lining has a dark cloud.
Therein lies the catch. The change needed requires effort, the effort requires at least some minimal amount of joint motivation, and we have spent the digital age splitting motivational hairs, generating noise and exhausting ourselves in performatively narrating the progress loudly.
Unlike dark clouds with silver linings, people actually have meaningful leverage over this weather... and metaphorically speaking, we are kinda firing hurricanes at one another.
Great piece. I'm a free speech fundamentalist but I have been suspicious of the Greenwald/Taibbi crowd's grasp on the facts for a long time, even though I mostly agree with their values. This illuminated things a lot for me.
On the laptop issue, it does seem likely that there are individual people at the FBI who are morally culpable for not leaking accurate information to the media that would have verified the laptop and exposed the illegitimacy of the censorship. But a conspiracy seems unlikely for the reasons you cite.
Shellenberger's intervention into the Irish hate speech debate was really hysterical. No knowledge of the Irish and European legal contexts involved. Musk was similar. I hate the "imported culture war' trope popular with the establishment here, but it did feel like the issue was being exploited to serve narratives useful further afield.
A small point of detail
"state or government censorship (i.e., censorship enforced by government representatives or agencies), which would violate the First Amendment,"
Not universally true. There is a good deal of speech that is constrained that does not violate.
Thanks for your write-up at last on this issue, it's certainly extensively argued. I find the comment section discouraging, so I'll forgo a detailed reply. Let me just toss in a point of information:
It is not difficult to technically verify the authenticity of many of the emails in the Hunter Biden laptop. This was in fact done immediately, and here is one guide by an expert on how to do it:
https://blog.erratasec.com/2020/10/yes-we-can-validate-leaked-emails.html
Now, as a technical person, I understand that the level of comprehension in the media is almost literally unable to grasp that playing Russian Roulette can fail on the first shot, or that nobody can say with certainty which shot will fail (this is a probability joke). Nonetheless, the validity of key material was never an objective question, but much more a real example of "social construction of truth" question.
"...but their flaws pale in comparison with the torrent of self-serving lies and demonstrable falsehoods that come from figures like Trump, Elon Musk, and Tucker Carlson."
How do you square this with your idea that "fake news" is relatively rare? If a former (and potentially future!) President, the richest man in the world and the largest media figure in the world ate spreading "demonstrable falsehoods," then surely fake news must be fairly common!
One minor thing is that the anti censorship framing you use has a lot to say for it. And I too would prefer if the movement just called themselves what they are, anti-reactionary propaganda. But it has to be noted that for all the legitimate grievances of the MAGA base, the anti disinformation folks are legitimately fighting against an attempt to end the republic, not just pro up the status quo.
To the point of legitimate grievances, I'd be interested what you think from a slightly broader view. It's become common to talk about education polarization. But I prefer Picketty's framing here where the issue is that across Europe and the anglosphere, the left parties were taken over by what he calls the Brahmin left: upper middle and upper class folks mostly with post grad degrees who are socially liberal and vaguely sympathetic with the downtrodden but fundamentally are winners in the current system so oppose big changes that would disadvantage them (us). So with the plutocrats and "merchant right" in charge of the right parties and the Brahmin left in charge of the left parties, the working and middle class had representation nowhere. Leading eventually to the Trump/Le Pen/Boris uprisings and in process reshuffling. I'd be interested in your take there.
David Runciman has some interesting things to say about this: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/05/trump-brexit-education-gap-tearing-politics-apart
I think there is a gap in parties that genuinely represent the working class. And to me that is linked to the hollowing out of the union movement.
Considering the last paragraph which is the only thing I have a different view,the most authoritarian American regime wasn't the 1st Trump presidency but the one we have now,especially during covid outbreaks.And while Trumps lies can be dangerous,with instances such as potentially increasing hatred against immigrants,he isn't responsible for the loss of institutional trust democracy relies on.Consider these two videos,and countless other examples which when accumulated can damage institutions just as much as capitol riots on baseless lies
https://youtu.be/pukU3fmFXmY?si=g5_3VqTlXUSLPmUQ
https://youtu.be/IUJOLVdVrjs?si=ZKDIJjdUNXeRaA1m
I completely disagree.
Furthermore, the constant stream of lies and attacks on institutions, norms and values that Trump and his MAGA army have subjected the US population to were not confined to his presidency. This corrosive approach has been constant since Trump entered in the political scene.
“they are ultimately private companies that should be free to set whatever content moderation policies they want.” This might be a weak point in your argument. Are they as private as you believe them to be considering intellectual property legislation, lobbying efforts to reduce competition through anti-competitive regulation, government subsidies to create jobs in certain states, and in the case of so-called private universities receive a great deal of public financing? My guess is that you’re 3/4 correct, but it’s worth considering my perspective. Lobbying efforts by private companies reduce market competition making companies a bit more like publicly protected oligopolies.
Here’s a perspective on public and private universities that you might want to look at as well. This is a stronger case than the one I made above. There are almost no private universities in America.
https://substack.com/@scottgibb/p-150212277