Our Legacy: Part 4 (Censored)

Censorship is now everywhere. In business, politics, schools, social media, public transit, and even in homes. What you can say, and what you can't say. Where you're allowed to say certain things and where you are not. Much like smoking or consuming alcohol, uttering certain opinions is now limited to certain places, and those places are shrinking quickly. But how did we get to this point? And where are we going in the future?

History may not be so kind to these times. After all, if we give up on free speech as a right and just let it go we likely won't get it back. But why are so many of us seemingly willing to do just that? First, we must understand the process we are undergoing, what drives it, and what we need to be aware of in order to influence outcomes and protect free speech.

Social media platforms, like the one I am writing this article on, are businesses. Their product is people - eye balls. Their intention is to maximize user and dwell times to drive advertising revenues. They do not owe us anything. They are technology platforms marketers use to target a specific audience within the context of a relevant set of beliefs or interests. They are not vehicles of social good, and are not thwarted to provide any assurances for users other than that of basic public safety, and protection from crime, and harassment. They are businesses that profit from your time spent / wasted on their platforms. A great film that dives into some of the challenges of social media recently came out on Netflix - it gets to the heart of social media's limitations and risks. If you'd like to find out more about that film here's a link for you below:

So if we get our news from social media platforms, we need to recognize that the information we see is what the algorithm thinks we want to see. To use an example, let's say you enjoy searching "Let's Go Brandon" on your phone regularly, then it's likely you will be served up stories, "news", videos and blogs that align with the set of beliefs or preferences that people who also search "Let's Go Brandon" align with. You may not agree with those set of beliefs or even remotely support them, but the technology behind the tools you use to access the internet will make that decision for you, at least until you start filtering further, or change what you search for.

That process results in a digital experience that becomes narrower over time, wherein the ability to seek out information that doesn't align with your views becomes more difficult. So after sifting through a set of news items that align with "Let's Go Brandon" you could find yourself realizing that you are not getting the information you want. And that presumes that the information you may seek has not been removed or blocked by the search engine or platform you are seeking the information from, which happens often now too.

So if the technology we use continues to narrow our experiences in the digital world, then what does that say about our ongoing ability to understand and empathize with views other than our own? If we continue to seek more information online to formulate our beliefs and opinions, it is inevitably leading us to a less diverse set of opinions, a less robust dialogue, and a less valuable political discourse. This is perhaps the single biggest issue we face when it comes to censorship - it's not the hard, absolute censorship that is most dangerous, it's the pervasive soft censorship that limits our exposure to differing opinions. We are creating entire generations with the same or similar beliefs, reinforced by confirmation bias that is both manufactured for us by social media, but also continually narrowed over time through technology. The situation is pretty dire for those looking to expand their minds, listen to different views and explore new ways of thinking.

"it's not the hard, absolute censorship that is most dangerous, it's the pervasive soft censorship that limits our exposure to differing opinions"

OH! CANADA?

Recent news in Canada has shown a breaking point for its citizenry over COVID mandates set forth by its federal government. The blockades in Ottawa and the borders have been ongoing and the political sentiment is clearly shifting from one of fear and compliance to one of challenging the government narrative, and demanding freedoms to be restored.

The response? The Canadian Prime Minister (PM), supported by mainstream media, has painted a picture that demonstrators are violent, racist, transphobic, disruptive and are holding the country and economy hostage. Protesters have sat near Canada's parliament with trucks and have effectively closed borders. The same borders the federal government held closed for a sustained period. For some, the government were justified and the protesters are not, while for others the protesters are justified and should be commended. Regardless of ones' views on that it should be concerning to all Canadians that their government is actively and deliberately quashing free speech, if one assumes that right is still valued.

Then things turned up a notch. The Canadian PM declared a state of emergency by enabling the "Emergency Measures Act" which is designed to be used by the federal government when law and order need to be restored with force. The emergency was needed for this action to be legitimate and it is the first time Canada has used it since the 1970 when there was significant civil unrest in Quebec. For a reference to the PM's announcement see link below:

One may ask why is this an emergency? One could argue law and order do need to be restored, and the government needs to gain control over its capital. That seems valid, at least on the surface. However, one could also argue the PM has refused to discuss the concerns of protesters, and has called them all kinds of names, including terrorists. His response and lack of engagement with protesters has likely made matters worse, and fuelled justification for their presence. The Canadian PM even went as far as claiming that a Jewish Member of Parliament (MP) was "standing with swastikas" by supporting a discussion over protesters. Swastikas were used by the Nazis, and the MP is a descendent of holocaust survivors. The PM refused to apologize for his comments.

Then, in an unprecedented move the Canadian government started freezing private citizens' bank accounts who financially supported protesters. This essentially expanded the hit list of people being targeted by the government to those supporting it with their wallets. Yet, the same federal government supported and celebrated protesters rioting in the United States that included looting, violence and vandalism in 2020 - but why?

Ideology. The worst part of politics. The part that pegs blue against red, or "Liberals" against "Conservatives". It's the narrow set of views accepting a system of ideas which forms the basis of economic and political theories and policies. And the Canadian PM has demonstrated he is most definitely ideologically driven. So, much like those surfing the net for "Let's Go Brandon", narrowing is now taking centre stage in the political discourse, and it's dangerous. This is how wars are started. This is how civil war erupts. The road we are on is leading to increased polarization and we need to speak out about it. We need to show empathy for others' views, listen and learn, and value free speech above all, not only when we agree with others, but most importantly when we do not.

"We need to show empathy for others' views, listen and learn, and value free speech above all, not only when we agree with others, but most importantly when we do not."

Back in the USA

We have to talk about Joe Rogan if we are going to talk about censorship. The recent controversy over his podcasts on the subject of the pandemic and associated points of view by his guests were met with a full court press of media backlash, coincidentally capped off with a video that suddenly surfaced of him using the "N" word. He quickly apologized for the use of the word and tried to do damage control, but for many the fact he even used the word was enough to ask for his removal from Spotify.

However, much like a similar situation Dave Chappell got into with his Netflix show "The Closer", Spotify made comments that supported those who were critical but decided to keep the content on their platform. For Spotify it would have been a business decision, regardless of their management teams' opinions as Joe Rogan hosts their largest show, and is part of a multi-year agreement said worth $100 million. That's a fairly big incentive to keep him, as are the 11 million listeners of his shows.

Censorship and attempts of censorship over the pandemic in particular have been extreme. In the history of censorship in the United States we have not seen such a systemic effort to silence those who question the validity of government narratives, even when the facts seem to run counter to some of the policies and mandates. But why has censorship been so strong on these subjects, and why have doctors and professors been silenced from scientific debate on the relevant issues? After all the government narrative suggests that policies are based on science. Science is the discovery of new ideas and knowledge through peer review - science itself requires debate to progress knowledge - so why is that debate being denied?

For some, it's about the money. Dr. Robert Malone - one of Joe Rogan's guests on an episode that created controversy - was removed from Twitter for his questions around mandates. He pointed out that the fact checker for Twitter (who helps remove users who spread misinformation) was none other than Thompson Reuters - who's CEO sits on the Board of Directors of Pfizer. So the company fact checking his tweets had a CEO that had a direct relationship with Pfizer. Whether you believe in a real connection or not, it certainly is coincidental.

Vanguard Funds own most major media companies through their investments, and their investments are among the largest in the world as the largest institutional investor. Many of us have Vanguard funds or ETFs in our portfolios. A map of their media ownership is below, and does not include their massive holdings in social media giants:

And that same company has a major stake in Pfizer. In fact they are the largest institutional owner of the shares. See below:

For media companies who benefit from advertising from many of the companies owned by Vanguard it must be difficult to run stories that do not support Vanguard owned companies. In political studies they call this "Corporatism", wherein the role of corporations in influencing journalism and public policy increases to the point that they drive public policy direction and messaging. It can be dangerous if the power is abused, and if it's used to drive decisions that affect the public safety one needs to be even more cautious.

A Small World After All

Gone are the days of privacy. Our privacy is limited to our ability to disconnect from the internet, our phones, and our computers. We have become the consumer of media, that drives value for large capital corporations and those companies do not owe us anything. They are profit driven and we are the product. We are the asset they monetize. So to think that censorship will go away is naive. Censorship is what controls the narrative that is designed to maximize shareholder value, and shareholders matter. This is part of our legacy, and one that history will be unkind about.

Our media landscape and technology has systematically declared war on free speech, discovery, and critical thinking. Learning and growing is being stunted and polarization of ideological stances are becoming more entrenched. We do need to right this ship if we are to hold onto free speech and limit censorship.

I certainly do not agree with everything Joe Rogan says, Dr. Malone, the protesters here in Canada, or anyone else who has similar views. But I also don't agree with everything my government says. I am a free individual who is free to think for himself. And I would like to keep it that way. Anyone else feel the same way? It's time to start talking about free speech again if we want to protect it from vanishing, because we are quickly losing it. So while I may disagree with some of those who may comment on this article I welcome the comments. We all should!