I used to be a big defender of a lot of online safety proposals, and I do still believe more safety measures are needed. But seeing the consequences of how it's all gone down in practice has changed my view about how strict regulations should be. A lot of this overreach does more harm than good.
Troubling as the times can seem, it's seeing people standing up like this that give me hope we will pull through this.
You are so remarkably stupid there is no hope we have only gone through these things with scars and battles only because people were able to stand up and fight. You'll never hear about the struggles because somehow we've accepted those forms of censorship and surveillance as everyday life. We got out of all of those things because of luck. Because of thinking and people fighting to the death for our rights. And we don't have that today. This is a global concentrated effort between project 2025 and the global Online safety Regulators Network with ofcom and they three year plan
I’m sure others will more substantially engage with the argument here, but can I politely request you don’t use AI art? It’s one of the few uses where AI is replacing, not augmenting, human effort, and I happen to find it ugly. This isn’t some unicorn niche issue where no Shutterstock/Unsplash photo will serve.
I’ve been blogging for about twenty years now, and I’ve used art, or photos, since the beginning. It seems to me that we have a few choices for art on a blog:
1. We can draw it (or take photos) ourselves. I do that occasionally, but it takes forever.
2. We can pay for it. I can't afford it, sorry.
3. We can steal it. I think this is what most people do. It makes me uncomfortable.
4. We can use publicly available images. I’ve done this a lot, but they rarely say what I want to say.
5. We can use AI.
I think AI can express an idea that can’t be expressed any other way. I especially liked today’s security gate into an authoritarian society. I thought this captures the idea perfectly — and it made me laugh. I don't think the idea in the picture was available anywhere else. I’m glad we got to see it.
I’m not trying to start an argument here at all. I just wanted to share why I think AI art is a good idea. I understand that you have a different opinion.
I’m not trying to start a fight either, and I understand where you’re coming from. But FIRE has an annual budget north of $30m, according to Google. They are operating on a vastly different scale than a personal blog. I get that that’s not all that much for a nonprofit, but $29 a month for 10 Shutterstock images should still be well within their budget. (My employer has Shutterstock, so I’m familiar with their image selection — believe me when I say “security gate” is well within the concepts it can represent.)
Personally, I get more annoyed by AI art, and what it says about reluctance to pay artists what they’re worth, than whatever chuckle I might get from a funny image.
Excellent column. But I do have to respond to one statement you make:
"It wasn’t just that [Woodrow Wilson] kept the United States out of World War I too long — a decision that may have made the war longer, bloodier, and more destabilizing than it needed to be."
I lay no claim to having a PhD in history, but have read others who say that the U.S. entry into World War I was a disaster, turning what had been a stalemate, and therefore susceptible to a fair negotiated settlement, into a clear victory for the Allies, leading to the disastrous Treaty of Versailles, which heavily burdened and psychologically crushed Germany, which led directly to the appeal and rise of the Nazis and to the even deadlier World War II.
I agree that Wilson was a horrible violator of free speech, but let's not forget Abe Lincoln, who also locked people up for saying things he did not like, and who did not just join, but actively started, a bloody and unnecessary war.
It's an interesting theoretical point (about WWI), but you could make it about almost any war. Massive US casualties could have been avoided in WWII if we had just sat down earlier to a negotiated settlement instead of being determined to eliminate the Nazi and Japanese governments, but would the world (or us) have been better off in the long run?
WWI itself could have ended months earlier if the Allies had been willing to leave the Kaiser in place; the Germans knew they were beaten when the Spring Offensive crapped out. They resisted negotiation as long as they did because they knew the allies would insist on the Kaiser's removal. Were they wrong to insist on a democratic government for Germany?
The real crime with the Treaty of Versailles was the treaty itself; it was grotesquely harsh and any thinking person could see it would be impossible to abide by. Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace is one of the best polemics ever written by an economist, and on exactly that subject. The victorious allies could have simply chosen to be responsible instead.
Let's not forget Donald Trump and George W Bush Jr. Political cartoons were censored under both their reins any commentary we actually have a federal agency attacking a comedian
Greg, why do privacy-preserving verification systems that employ cryptographic tokens and zero-knowledge proof of age and other attributes (voter eligibility anyone?) never seem to get any attention in these policy discussions? My guess is that few if any of the participants are honest about their motives. The governments just want the surveillance panopticon, and the opponents want complete anarchy. Alternatively, the policymakers are well-intentioned but just stupid?
naturally, the UK is gaslighting the people to think ACESS CONTROL AND INTERNET STAZI PROTOCOLS WITH A DECEPTIVE POLL is a popular idea when it IS NOT.
Don't call age verification call it total control or Access Control of what operating systems people use and the depersonalization and the move away from ownership of private property unless the government can snoop in on you. Call it digital fascism
The fifth Circuit Court of Appeals it all started with trying to say oh we need to protect children from p*** this is from the Paxton versus Free Speech Coalition which Clarence Thomas agreed with the Paxton. Paxton is an incredibly dangerous individual
I am currently writing a policy brief for the Bearing Institute on Canadian Bill C-34, the "Safe Social Media Act." Your article couldn't have come out at a more opportune time. You will be quoted in my brief. Thank you for such an apt and poignant warning of the potential harms of safety acts.
I'm afraid your old coauthor has far better judgement about this issue than you do.
I certainly agree that there is a role for anonymity on the internet. But there is absolute no reason that you can't prohibit anonymity on social media, while still allowing anonymous publishing online. I'd argue that removing anonymity from these platforms would be a positive step for the world, even if everyone who used the platforms was an adult. The fact that it's necessary to keep kids off these platforms just makes it an easy and obvious call.
The Obama administration brought Espionage Act charges against eight individuals for leaking classified information to the media or the public, more than all previous U.S. administrations combined. And threatened more. They also wiretapped and threatened the press, from James Risen to James Rosen. Perhaps that was in response to the rise of social media. But even many liberal Obama supporters decried it at the time.
That is just one of many misdeeds: domestic spying, IRS targeting of political enemies, Operation Choke Point, debanking, political interference in dozens of cases from ACORN at the start to Russiagate at the end, and frequent destruction and withholding of evidence across numerous cases.
If you count his "third term," the indictment gets far longer.
We could begin with his "Dear Colleague" letter....
Mind you: Wilson was a star by no means. He was godawful. As was FDR--incarcerating Japanese? Really? Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Not a fan. But for sheer hatred and divisiveness, Obama's got it, hands down--for my money, at least.
I assume you're talking about the "Dear Colleague" letter regarding sexual assault on campuses. And while I would agree that the changes triggered by that letter were mostly misguided, they also didn't have anything to do with free speech. And the idea that it drove hatred and divisiveness is absurd.
Yes. We are falling fast as a 'high-trust' culture enduring invasion from every 'low-trust nation "our"military has destroyed. 'Low-trust people do not assimilate. Neither do they share our 'high-trust'values.( i leave you in peace to prosper as you will because i need the same respect from you). The U.S.govt.has been rogue for years but now they are finished pretending to represent us. Couldn't care less,in fact,what we think,what we want,what we need to thrive. To not act in the flagrant face of danger IS agreement to the destruction of our culture. To not act is treason. For organization please consider joining your local forward-looking clubs,OCOC,or The Society of Problem solvers. The hour grows late- for us -
Thanks for the coverage on this, Greg!
I used to be a big defender of a lot of online safety proposals, and I do still believe more safety measures are needed. But seeing the consequences of how it's all gone down in practice has changed my view about how strict regulations should be. A lot of this overreach does more harm than good.
Troubling as the times can seem, it's seeing people standing up like this that give me hope we will pull through this.
You are so remarkably stupid there is no hope we have only gone through these things with scars and battles only because people were able to stand up and fight. You'll never hear about the struggles because somehow we've accepted those forms of censorship and surveillance as everyday life. We got out of all of those things because of luck. Because of thinking and people fighting to the death for our rights. And we don't have that today. This is a global concentrated effort between project 2025 and the global Online safety Regulators Network with ofcom and they three year plan
I’m sure others will more substantially engage with the argument here, but can I politely request you don’t use AI art? It’s one of the few uses where AI is replacing, not augmenting, human effort, and I happen to find it ugly. This isn’t some unicorn niche issue where no Shutterstock/Unsplash photo will serve.
I’ve been blogging for about twenty years now, and I’ve used art, or photos, since the beginning. It seems to me that we have a few choices for art on a blog:
1. We can draw it (or take photos) ourselves. I do that occasionally, but it takes forever.
2. We can pay for it. I can't afford it, sorry.
3. We can steal it. I think this is what most people do. It makes me uncomfortable.
4. We can use publicly available images. I’ve done this a lot, but they rarely say what I want to say.
5. We can use AI.
I think AI can express an idea that can’t be expressed any other way. I especially liked today’s security gate into an authoritarian society. I thought this captures the idea perfectly — and it made me laugh. I don't think the idea in the picture was available anywhere else. I’m glad we got to see it.
I’m not trying to start an argument here at all. I just wanted to share why I think AI art is a good idea. I understand that you have a different opinion.
(I hate text written by AI as much as you do).
I’m not trying to start a fight either, and I understand where you’re coming from. But FIRE has an annual budget north of $30m, according to Google. They are operating on a vastly different scale than a personal blog. I get that that’s not all that much for a nonprofit, but $29 a month for 10 Shutterstock images should still be well within their budget. (My employer has Shutterstock, so I’m familiar with their image selection — believe me when I say “security gate” is well within the concepts it can represent.)
Personally, I get more annoyed by AI art, and what it says about reluctance to pay artists what they’re worth, than whatever chuckle I might get from a funny image.
Excellent column. But I do have to respond to one statement you make:
"It wasn’t just that [Woodrow Wilson] kept the United States out of World War I too long — a decision that may have made the war longer, bloodier, and more destabilizing than it needed to be."
I lay no claim to having a PhD in history, but have read others who say that the U.S. entry into World War I was a disaster, turning what had been a stalemate, and therefore susceptible to a fair negotiated settlement, into a clear victory for the Allies, leading to the disastrous Treaty of Versailles, which heavily burdened and psychologically crushed Germany, which led directly to the appeal and rise of the Nazis and to the even deadlier World War II.
I agree that Wilson was a horrible violator of free speech, but let's not forget Abe Lincoln, who also locked people up for saying things he did not like, and who did not just join, but actively started, a bloody and unnecessary war.
It's an interesting theoretical point (about WWI), but you could make it about almost any war. Massive US casualties could have been avoided in WWII if we had just sat down earlier to a negotiated settlement instead of being determined to eliminate the Nazi and Japanese governments, but would the world (or us) have been better off in the long run?
WWI itself could have ended months earlier if the Allies had been willing to leave the Kaiser in place; the Germans knew they were beaten when the Spring Offensive crapped out. They resisted negotiation as long as they did because they knew the allies would insist on the Kaiser's removal. Were they wrong to insist on a democratic government for Germany?
The real crime with the Treaty of Versailles was the treaty itself; it was grotesquely harsh and any thinking person could see it would be impossible to abide by. Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace is one of the best polemics ever written by an economist, and on exactly that subject. The victorious allies could have simply chosen to be responsible instead.
Defending the rights of a free people from Traders to America would be a bloody and senseless War to you?
Let's not forget Donald Trump and George W Bush Jr. Political cartoons were censored under both their reins any commentary we actually have a federal agency attacking a comedian
Or Donald Trump right now. The bush era certainly saw a lot of political Comics being centered
Greg, why do privacy-preserving verification systems that employ cryptographic tokens and zero-knowledge proof of age and other attributes (voter eligibility anyone?) never seem to get any attention in these policy discussions? My guess is that few if any of the participants are honest about their motives. The governments just want the surveillance panopticon, and the opponents want complete anarchy. Alternatively, the policymakers are well-intentioned but just stupid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICwMUfQg7mc
naturally, the UK is gaslighting the people to think ACESS CONTROL AND INTERNET STAZI PROTOCOLS WITH A DECEPTIVE POLL is a popular idea when it IS NOT.
Don't call age verification call it total control or Access Control of what operating systems people use and the depersonalization and the move away from ownership of private property unless the government can snoop in on you. Call it digital fascism
The fifth Circuit Court of Appeals it all started with trying to say oh we need to protect children from p*** this is from the Paxton versus Free Speech Coalition which Clarence Thomas agreed with the Paxton. Paxton is an incredibly dangerous individual
I am currently writing a policy brief for the Bearing Institute on Canadian Bill C-34, the "Safe Social Media Act." Your article couldn't have come out at a more opportune time. You will be quoted in my brief. Thank you for such an apt and poignant warning of the potential harms of safety acts.
I'm afraid your old coauthor has far better judgement about this issue than you do.
I certainly agree that there is a role for anonymity on the internet. But there is absolute no reason that you can't prohibit anonymity on social media, while still allowing anonymous publishing online. I'd argue that removing anonymity from these platforms would be a positive step for the world, even if everyone who used the platforms was an adult. The fact that it's necessary to keep kids off these platforms just makes it an easy and obvious call.
"...That’s why FIRE has officially dubbed Woodrow Wilson the worst president for free speech, ever."
Wow. Ever heard of Obama?
Why do you think Obama was bad on free speech?
The Obama administration brought Espionage Act charges against eight individuals for leaking classified information to the media or the public, more than all previous U.S. administrations combined. And threatened more. They also wiretapped and threatened the press, from James Risen to James Rosen. Perhaps that was in response to the rise of social media. But even many liberal Obama supporters decried it at the time.
That is just one of many misdeeds: domestic spying, IRS targeting of political enemies, Operation Choke Point, debanking, political interference in dozens of cases from ACORN at the start to Russiagate at the end, and frequent destruction and withholding of evidence across numerous cases.
If you count his "third term," the indictment gets far longer.
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/06/28/534682231/once-reserved-for-spies-espionage-act-now-used-against-suspected-leakers
We could begin with his "Dear Colleague" letter....
Mind you: Wilson was a star by no means. He was godawful. As was FDR--incarcerating Japanese? Really? Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Not a fan. But for sheer hatred and divisiveness, Obama's got it, hands down--for my money, at least.
I assume you're talking about the "Dear Colleague" letter regarding sexual assault on campuses. And while I would agree that the changes triggered by that letter were mostly misguided, they also didn't have anything to do with free speech. And the idea that it drove hatred and divisiveness is absurd.
Yes. We are falling fast as a 'high-trust' culture enduring invasion from every 'low-trust nation "our"military has destroyed. 'Low-trust people do not assimilate. Neither do they share our 'high-trust'values.( i leave you in peace to prosper as you will because i need the same respect from you). The U.S.govt.has been rogue for years but now they are finished pretending to represent us. Couldn't care less,in fact,what we think,what we want,what we need to thrive. To not act in the flagrant face of danger IS agreement to the destruction of our culture. To not act is treason. For organization please consider joining your local forward-looking clubs,OCOC,or The Society of Problem solvers. The hour grows late- for us -
RETHINK/RESIST/RISE UP