Sorry, but I take issue with the last part of your post. I think too much “Marvel” type fantasy helps enable attacks on free speech and truth, such as censorship, in that both lead to a denial, or avoidance, of reality. To me the worst part of censorship is the denial of truth, which is in effect lying. Some Marvel is good, too much not.
I continue to believe that what matters is the number of successful de-platforming attempts, not the number of attempts. Attempts lags success by a few years, if the success rate drops then so too will the number of attempts.
Excellent article by Mchangama re Tiawan’s approach to disinformation. Not to say the exact same thing would work everywhere, but they put the dozens of nations that constitute the “free world” to shame, especially Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Germany, and yes, the US. This small political entity sits right next to the massive disinformation central, and yet they have the guts and wherewithal to show up the rest of us.
If you watch “Prime Minister’s Questions”, you see what a debate can look like. When you watch the “debates” in our congress, you see posturing and repetitive political speeches - a lot like redundant infomercials. Can we not do better?
Suppose we had real debates in America, using the Munk debates as a model, but lasting, say, six sessions with one or two weeks between sessions. Imagine good knowledgeable people (not talking heads) focusing on issues like censorship, or immigration, talking about facts and reality, without the BS, labeling, name calling and half-truths we get almost everywhere else.
Our government, in this regard, has failed us . . . so we need to do a workaround.
How do you square the unconstitutionality of this age verification law with Jonathan Haidt's call for age verification on social media? Is it because that would be content-neutral? Is it because it applies to tracked accounts, rather than simple content access?
Sorry, but I take issue with the last part of your post. I think too much “Marvel” type fantasy helps enable attacks on free speech and truth, such as censorship, in that both lead to a denial, or avoidance, of reality. To me the worst part of censorship is the denial of truth, which is in effect lying. Some Marvel is good, too much not.
I continue to believe that what matters is the number of successful de-platforming attempts, not the number of attempts. Attempts lags success by a few years, if the success rate drops then so too will the number of attempts.
Excellent article by Mchangama re Tiawan’s approach to disinformation. Not to say the exact same thing would work everywhere, but they put the dozens of nations that constitute the “free world” to shame, especially Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Germany, and yes, the US. This small political entity sits right next to the massive disinformation central, and yet they have the guts and wherewithal to show up the rest of us.
If you watch “Prime Minister’s Questions”, you see what a debate can look like. When you watch the “debates” in our congress, you see posturing and repetitive political speeches - a lot like redundant infomercials. Can we not do better?
Suppose we had real debates in America, using the Munk debates as a model, but lasting, say, six sessions with one or two weeks between sessions. Imagine good knowledgeable people (not talking heads) focusing on issues like censorship, or immigration, talking about facts and reality, without the BS, labeling, name calling and half-truths we get almost everywhere else.
Our government, in this regard, has failed us . . . so we need to do a workaround.
How do you square the unconstitutionality of this age verification law with Jonathan Haidt's call for age verification on social media? Is it because that would be content-neutral? Is it because it applies to tracked accounts, rather than simple content access?