I am wondering: Is the problem censorship in the traditional sense or that available human attention remains constant while available content increases exponentially?
If the amount of content far exceeds available human attention, most content is never paid attention to by nobody, that is, most content is effectively censored.
In yet other words, what makes us dumber is the ever accelerating rate at which content is created.
I'm something of a luddite when it comes to social media, and I think a lot of what we produce on these platforms is noise. So I'm sympathetic to your argument.
But I still think that traditional censorship is worse. Imagine that we live in a giant library, full of more books than we can ever read. Most of those books are what most people would call trash. But because we talk about and share our favorite books, a lot of the best books are still going to rise to the top. Some books might even rise that we ourselves consider bad, because one man's trash is another man's treasure.
But now suppose that a censor comes in and starts deleting whole sections of the library, including some books that most of us would consider to be very good, because he disagrees with the ideas in them. To me, that seems worse.
The inquisition is coming from both ends of the spectrum, and anti-authoritarians are the heretics du jour. Authoritarian systems work by creating a sufficient climate of fear so that people police themselves.
Authoritarians would have no power if falsehoods did not serve an important function. The belief in lies provides group identity, particularly when those lies channel our need for hatred outward. Those who believe officially sanctioned lies are especially easy to control, while the search for truth poses an existential threat. Like alcoholics whose only friends are at the corner bar, quitting our addictions can leave us friendless and without support. Seeing an imaginary « other side » as being incorrect has far less utility than being opposed to evildoers who are out to destroy goodness and light. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a good example. It would be far less useful if true.
Trying to convince people of what are facts becomes a fruitless endeavor. Seeking the truth, on the other hand, demands courage . We may have to relinquish the emotional, social, and financial perks that come with our investment in lies. It is a sunk cost though, while the search for truth is ultimately more fulfilling, even if it can never be fully achieved.
That is the intent. Repression of Independent thought is a means of totalitarian control and the underpinning strategy of all fascist regimes. Propaganda 101.
That's happened throughout history, but in this case I'm not sure the overall intent is all that bad. Some censors really are authoritarians who just want power and control; but a lot more really think they're ridding the world of misinformation and disinformation and so making the world a better place. They're just not very good at recognizing the distinction between truth and mis/disinformation, so their actions are dangerous, but they're not made out of evil intent.
I didn’t vote for Trump or the DEI hire but I do find it interesting that the AP did not apparently object when Obama pandered to native Americans and changed the name of Mt McKinley to Denali. Why is one presidential name change acceptable to them but not the second?
One answer might be that the AP simply doesn't like Trump all that much, which is certainly their prerogative.
Another might be that the Gulf of Mexico is an international body of water, which isn't owned by any one country and so its name can't really be changed unilaterally.
Here's how the AP explains it. I actually find their explanation to be pretty consistent.
“Now, the Trump administration is deporting former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil. The administration claims that Khalil is compromising a compelling foreign policy interest, and that he "led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization." However, apart from a recent allegation that Khalil lied on his visa application, the administration has supplied no evidence that Khalil was doing anything more than engaging in speech. In fact, one Trump official said that "The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law."”
I think the point of this action is that a noncitizen doesn’t have the same rights as a citizen. Do we want malign actors to come to this country advocating for terrorist objectives? Let’s leave that privilege to citizens. No other country recognizes the right to free speech given by our creator. Do you advocate that we encourage immigration to this country to people who want to overthrow our freedoms? Should we offer citizenship to those who would not take an oath of loyalty? I say of course not. What say you?
"Do you advocate that we encourage immigration to this country to people who want to overthrow our freedoms? Should we offer citizenship to those who would not take an oath of loyalty? I say of course not. What say you?"
I agree with you. I think we should be pretty selective about not letting people in to our great country who support terrorists.
But I also worry about the precedent that Trump's actions might set. Suppose that Biden had decided that DEI was really essential to our American identity, and so decided to deport Jordan Peterson when he came to visit because Peterson speaks out against DEI. Should that be allowed?
As always, the question when it comes to policing free speech is: who gets to decide where the line is?
The uk and australia deport and refuse entry to critics of a so called peaceful belief system. While they also allow in so many militant advocates of it they do not have enough law enforcement to surveil them. Its not apples to apples. So ‘both sides’ doesn’t work. One has systematically expelled dissidents from corporate, medicine and education while
Installing apparatchiks. The other removes people engaging in assault, calling for violence and group hatred. That seems to show minimum use of force which is a reasonable ethic.
DEI and most other positions are of a different character than terrorism and being an enemy of our country. I think Trump’s team has been careful in selecting his targets. I’m sure there are plenty of noncitizens who advocate other things he disapproves of.
… for publishing science which claimed mathematically that 150% of the population was already infected by covid by end April 2020.
He was ridiculed, by scientists - his fingerprints were on subsequent papers which continued to assert nonsense - far from silenced.
Likewise he claimed we should do nothing about transmission in the far-from-silenced Barrington “Declaration”, other than to herd old people into enclaves.
I am wondering: Is the problem censorship in the traditional sense or that available human attention remains constant while available content increases exponentially?
If the amount of content far exceeds available human attention, most content is never paid attention to by nobody, that is, most content is effectively censored.
In yet other words, what makes us dumber is the ever accelerating rate at which content is created.
It's a good question!
I'm something of a luddite when it comes to social media, and I think a lot of what we produce on these platforms is noise. So I'm sympathetic to your argument.
But I still think that traditional censorship is worse. Imagine that we live in a giant library, full of more books than we can ever read. Most of those books are what most people would call trash. But because we talk about and share our favorite books, a lot of the best books are still going to rise to the top. Some books might even rise that we ourselves consider bad, because one man's trash is another man's treasure.
But now suppose that a censor comes in and starts deleting whole sections of the library, including some books that most of us would consider to be very good, because he disagrees with the ideas in them. To me, that seems worse.
What do you think?
The inquisition is coming from both ends of the spectrum, and anti-authoritarians are the heretics du jour. Authoritarian systems work by creating a sufficient climate of fear so that people police themselves.
Well said <3
Authoritarians would have no power if falsehoods did not serve an important function. The belief in lies provides group identity, particularly when those lies channel our need for hatred outward. Those who believe officially sanctioned lies are especially easy to control, while the search for truth poses an existential threat. Like alcoholics whose only friends are at the corner bar, quitting our addictions can leave us friendless and without support. Seeing an imaginary « other side » as being incorrect has far less utility than being opposed to evildoers who are out to destroy goodness and light. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a good example. It would be far less useful if true.
Trying to convince people of what are facts becomes a fruitless endeavor. Seeking the truth, on the other hand, demands courage . We may have to relinquish the emotional, social, and financial perks that come with our investment in lies. It is a sunk cost though, while the search for truth is ultimately more fulfilling, even if it can never be fully achieved.
Well said <3
That is the intent. Repression of Independent thought is a means of totalitarian control and the underpinning strategy of all fascist regimes. Propaganda 101.
That's happened throughout history, but in this case I'm not sure the overall intent is all that bad. Some censors really are authoritarians who just want power and control; but a lot more really think they're ridding the world of misinformation and disinformation and so making the world a better place. They're just not very good at recognizing the distinction between truth and mis/disinformation, so their actions are dangerous, but they're not made out of evil intent.
What do you think?
I didn’t vote for Trump or the DEI hire but I do find it interesting that the AP did not apparently object when Obama pandered to native Americans and changed the name of Mt McKinley to Denali. Why is one presidential name change acceptable to them but not the second?
It's a fair question.
One answer might be that the AP simply doesn't like Trump all that much, which is certainly their prerogative.
Another might be that the Gulf of Mexico is an international body of water, which isn't owned by any one country and so its name can't really be changed unilaterally.
Here's how the AP explains it. I actually find their explanation to be pretty consistent.
https://www.ap.org/the-definitive-source/announcements/ap-style-guidance-on-gulf-of-mexico-mount-mckinley/
What do you think?
Julian: Good research on your part.
Excellent pull towards the middle. I recently wrote about “the middle.” It just seems no one can find the middle. https://tidbitsofaudacity.com/wordpress/index.php/2025/02/25/where-is-the-middle/
“Now, the Trump administration is deporting former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil. The administration claims that Khalil is compromising a compelling foreign policy interest, and that he "led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization." However, apart from a recent allegation that Khalil lied on his visa application, the administration has supplied no evidence that Khalil was doing anything more than engaging in speech. In fact, one Trump official said that "The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law."”
I think the point of this action is that a noncitizen doesn’t have the same rights as a citizen. Do we want malign actors to come to this country advocating for terrorist objectives? Let’s leave that privilege to citizens. No other country recognizes the right to free speech given by our creator. Do you advocate that we encourage immigration to this country to people who want to overthrow our freedoms? Should we offer citizenship to those who would not take an oath of loyalty? I say of course not. What say you?
"Do you advocate that we encourage immigration to this country to people who want to overthrow our freedoms? Should we offer citizenship to those who would not take an oath of loyalty? I say of course not. What say you?"
I agree with you. I think we should be pretty selective about not letting people in to our great country who support terrorists.
But I also worry about the precedent that Trump's actions might set. Suppose that Biden had decided that DEI was really essential to our American identity, and so decided to deport Jordan Peterson when he came to visit because Peterson speaks out against DEI. Should that be allowed?
As always, the question when it comes to policing free speech is: who gets to decide where the line is?
The uk and australia deport and refuse entry to critics of a so called peaceful belief system. While they also allow in so many militant advocates of it they do not have enough law enforcement to surveil them. Its not apples to apples. So ‘both sides’ doesn’t work. One has systematically expelled dissidents from corporate, medicine and education while
Installing apparatchiks. The other removes people engaging in assault, calling for violence and group hatred. That seems to show minimum use of force which is a reasonable ethic.
DEI and most other positions are of a different character than terrorism and being an enemy of our country. I think Trump’s team has been careful in selecting his targets. I’m sure there are plenty of noncitizens who advocate other things he disapproves of.
“professor Jay Bhattacharya were silenced.”
… for publishing science which claimed mathematically that 150% of the population was already infected by covid by end April 2020.
He was ridiculed, by scientists - his fingerprints were on subsequent papers which continued to assert nonsense - far from silenced.
Likewise he claimed we should do nothing about transmission in the far-from-silenced Barrington “Declaration”, other than to herd old people into enclaves.
The silenced person apparently never shuts up.