provided elites maintained their monopoly on the presses, they could maintain a monopoly on the narrative. That’s part of what made “his realm, his religion” a viable settlement after the Thirty Years’ War. Because princes had print and peasants didn’t have iPhones, the former retained some degree of epistemic dominance over the latter—more than would be possible today.
He argues that modern technology has the effect of creating outlets for more points of view while making us feel more threatened by other points of view. Something has to give.
2. Daniel Bessner and Amber A’Lee Frost write,
As became clear once QAnon-ers entered the Capitol, they had no genuine strategy and no genuine program, instead relying on a millenarian faith that Trump would deliver them from the rule of elite pedophiles, heal the sick, comfort the poor, and establish a New Jerusalem.
A classic revolt of the public, then. But the rest of the article gets even more interesting. Read the following excerpt, and in your mind substitute anti-racism for QAnon:
Q makes people feel good. We don’t mean merely that it makes them “feel good” by delivering the dopamine jolts that come from the embrace of a community, the thrill of discovery, the satisfaction of enlightenment, and the comfort of a worldview that brings hope, though QAnon does provide all of that. What we mean is that it makes them feel “Good,” as in righteous, heroic, noble, and benevolent. So why would a QAnon-er stop believing, especially given that a return to a pre-Q worldview likely invites back all the pre-Q fear, confusion, and feelings of powerlessness that engendered an individual’s turn to QAnon in the first place, only this time there’s the added pain of shame and the shattering of one’s self-image as a wise and virtuous person.
3. Martin got his chance on cable TV.
Finally, it was my turn. My host introduced me and read a quotation from the City Journal piece, but he did it so aggressively and vociferously that, even though I had written them, the words terrified me.
“MARTIN GURRI, WHAT DO YOU THINK?”
I cleared my throat. “Well, you have to understand, the concept of post-journalism was actually developed by a brilliant media scholar called Andrey Mir –“
“THANK YOU AND GOODBYE, MARTIN GURRI. THAT’S ALL THE TIME YOU GET.”
I have never been invited to Cable TV, but I have been invited to very minor talk radio programs, with similar results.
2. I can see that the Q Menace story is being pushed pretty hard. I’m not buying it. Qanon looks to me like an internet version of Rocky Horror Picture Show. I suppose the clickbait void left by Trump must be filled. Next candidate, please.
When the barbarians attacked the Tea Party, the cowards appeased them. Today when the barbarians attack Qanon, again the cowards appease them. Too many cowards. I bet you that Martin Gurri will accept invitations to be interviewed on Cable TV and other media.
Sibarium: “By January 9 Google and Apple had dropped Parler from their app stores, and Amazon had banned it from its servers, nearly ending the pro-Trump social network overnight. (It has since found new life on Russian servers.)”
Tales of Parler’s reincarnation have been greatly exaggerated. So far, after over three weeks, they have a defended IP address and one home page. And if it does recover, there are plenty of other ways to knock it back down, and likewise to intimidate its suppliers and its users into staying away. “If you don’t like it, go build your own.” Sure.
“on the one hand, how it can coordinate crackpots who would have been impotent pre-internet and disseminate delusion among the otherwise well-adjusted; – ”
ICBMs
” – on the other, how it can concentrate political power in the hands of nominally private actors, letting billionaires set the terms and conditions of public debate.”
One potential test for “private” actors who are not in “monopolies” is that they don’t all do the same thing at the same time, especially when it gives them cover to crush potential new rivals.
“The digital age has thus amplified diversity while eroding our cultural tolerance for it. That contradiction is pushing Big Tech toward a type of discursive despotism, in which social media are forms of social control and free speech is held hostage by corporate power. My guess is that the institutional solution to this problem, whatever it turns out to be, will bear a family resemblance to liberalism. But it may also require serious departures from liberalism in its past and present forms—and liberals should calibrate their expectations accordingly.”
What he obviously means is that we are going to have to constrain the ability of big platform companies to enforce speech rules, a kind of “liberty-focused consequentialist utilitarianism”. Sacrifice a little corporate freedom, as is done with “common carriers”, for the sake of a lot more individual freedom, accepting as the price of that freedom that some of those people are going to use their freedom irresponsibly and when they cross the legal limits set by the designated mechanism for agreeing on social rules and making them discernable, they can and will be prosecuted for it.
Well, I say ‘individual’ freedom, but maybe also some more corporate freedom too, like, say, the freedom of things like the Parler corporation to exist.
Handle,
Can you comment on the ninth circuit judge’s unwillingness to grant an injunction in the Parler case? I thought the fact that the judge thought that there was a “balance of harm” between Amazon and Parler to be hilarious.
It was almost, “You sly dog, you got me monologuing.” I’ll restrain myself.
But quickly, keep in mind that decisions about injunctions are made differently from decisions about the merits of particular claims, judges have extremely wide discretion, i.e., they do whatever they want.
But even on the merits, my view is that Parler doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on. They have a breach of contract claim and an antitrust claim, and I don’t think they will prevail on either, nor do I really think they should, though I willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Indeed, in a way, while I hope they come back, survive and thrive as a company, I’m rooting for Parler to lose these legal battles definitively, so that it’s crystal clear to everyone what the current state of affairs really is, and the major problems and risks it poses for the future of a free society.
The problem is not that Amazon, Google, and Apple broke the law. The problem is the law is broken.
The problem is that under current law the perfectly wrong thing they did to Parler is perfectly legal.
In my view, Parler doesn’t have a case, but it *should* have a case, and there *ought* to be a cause of action which Parler – and everybody else – could use to avoid getting cancelled. And I’d rather people who are upset about Parler understand that changing the law is really the only realistic option they have if they don’t want it to just keep happening over and over.
Thank you for your reply, as usual it is illuminating.
I agree that this is a healthy lawsuit. Corporations around the world should be seriously considering their relationship with Amazon and other big platforms who have written such one-sided contracts which allow arbitrary executions of businesses and that are apparently perfectly enforceable in US courts.
I think we need section 230 reform that somehow requires companies to write down user-generated content rules in detail. Then those rules need to be reviewable by some kind of third-party like an arbitrator, possibly in court (where ambiguity is interpreted under First Amendment presumptions). The idea the companies can be shielded from liability lawsuits while also expressing opinion as publishers through moderation actions is untenable.
YES! US First Amendment enforcement – warning – legal counsel – go to court if disagree.
On any post. Not a person or website.
Platform can mark it as legal but “disavowed”, and exclude it from search – but does publish it.
Otherwise they are NOT “common carriers”.
Facebook should be sued – and lose.
Amusing. So a strong central government is now the essence of liberalism. Noted.
Sometimes details are telling. For example he regurgitates the endlessly repeated falsehood pronouncing the Capitol Hill mob guilty of “killing four.” One of the four who died was Ashli Bennett, shot by the police. Don’t see how you can claim that the mob killed her. Three others died of health conditions including a heart attack and a stroke. The mob must be guilty of that too, of course.
Then there is the curious attribution of Officer Sitnick’s death to mob inflicted injuries. Peculiarly slow acting injuries. One wonders if an autopsy report will ever be released. The New Neo covers the case here:
https://www.thenewneo.com/2021/01/30/update-on-officer-sicknicks-death/
At any rate, the cited article exemplifies how tax exempt propagandists are destroying civic life and are an affront to all that is good and decent in the world. Any easy fix to their contributions to the current state of affairs would be to repeal tax exempt status for 501(c)(3) tax exempts across the board and to eliminate tax deductibility for contributions to them. The Nation needs the revenue far more than whatever possible benefits some might claim to perceive they offer.
sorry, i butchered the quote formatting.
Also, why does something have to give? One reasonable option is people like Tyler Cowen and the Execs at Google, Twitter, Apple, and Amazon don’t get their way, and aren’t allowed to suppress political views they dislike. In the current climate, they do have supra-legal authority. That seems both unnecessary and undesirable.
There are concerns about censorship, and there are concerns about intentional manipulation of the communications channel.
Things get murky where the two concepts overlap, but these social modes do create some perverse marginal incentives. This is not purely about censorship.
Does Marjorie Taylor Greene believe Parkland was faked, or does she know that is a lie and is using the claim to create outrage based attention she can use to her political benefit? Do we want to make such distinctions? Is it a problem if one person does this? Is it a problem if lots of people do this?
If we can find a way to cull out bad faith manipulators from people with possibly vile but genuinely held views, we’ve made progress. Or, maybe there is no way. But we can agree this isn’t easy.
General rules are never going to settle difficult cases.
But figuring out whether or not Parkland was faked is the farthest thing from a difficult case. I don’t think it matters much for the purpose of formulating general rules whether someone spreading a pernicious lie is sincerely mentally ill and delusional or cynically manipulative and calculating. If we can’t agree that something like this is beyond the pale then nothing is beyond the pale.
It doesn’t make sense to make difficult judgments impossible by requiring the ability to be a mind reader in order to make them.
“General rules are never going to settle difficult cases.”
That’s what laws are. We are forced to do this all the time. In the private sector, companies employ general rules to bring order too.
We aren’t trying to figure out whether or not Parkland was faked. We are trying to figure out how to handle freedom of speech, and what responsibilities these large social platforms have or don’t have.
Our old values would say to just let anyone say whatever they want, with a few notable exceptions. But we aren’t facing the frictions and face to face social accountability of the past, and we can now see removing those speedbumps changes the marginal incentives to manipulate.
I do not think it is possible in these circumstances to simply go with “I know it when I see it”. Recent history should be enough to convince you that no matter how insane the behavior is, some are going to see it as justifiable.
This is a pretty big deal, and we need better public discourse on what, if anything, should be done here.
Greg, did you in your mind substitute anti-racism for QAnon: ?
I immediately wondered about the substitutions of “Trump-hater” or “pro-Trumper”.
I’m sure you feel like you’re being a good person, and expressing your beliefs as you honestly believe them. Especially your self-image as a wise and virtuous person.
That’s certainly part of MY own self-image.
BUT, with humility and a search for Truth, even if the closest I get are merely facts.
Over at Neo’s place, there has long been a question about the death of Officer Sicknick.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2021/01/30/update-on-officer-sicknicks-death/
We do NOT know how he died.
Up to now, there is no evidence that he was hit with a fire extinguisher, nor in fact any trauma as the reason for his blood clot death in the hospital evening the next day, after returning to the office.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charges/index.html
All those, including YOU previously, who have been claiming a police officer was killed by being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher have been wrong.
You’ve been spreading — Fake News.
Untrue facts.
Usually without even links to allow sceptics to check – checks on facts are very important. In this case, I’m sure you could find CNN or other links – because so many Dem media folk write Fake News, so often.
On this issue. And for 5 years about Trump.
Fake News against Trump is one reason I supported him.
Pointing out Fake News also makes me feel “Good”.
Since the highly paid Media is “reporting” untrue facts, so often, it is no wonder that QAnon or other groups have a different mix of facts. Some true, like more pedophiles in DC than previously reported, some less true. (Parkland had real people killed).
Epstein didn’t kill himself.
Marjorie Taylor Greene replied “Exactly Stacy!!” on a Facebook comment thread. MTG didn’t say the Parkland shooting was faked, it seemed she replied to another commenter who said it was a false flag along with some other more reasonable criticisms, and there is a concerted effort to make MTG toxic for political reasons.
Looking at Gurri’s silly sad 15 seconds of fame on Cable TV, I see he has a Nov article not previously linked (for shame! Arnold…, did you miss it, too?) From before election, published after. Fantastic AND both more relevant & better than Sibarium or the Jacobins, tho when these other two seem correct, it’s when they agree with Gurri from a slightly different POV.
https://thefifthwave.wordpress.com/2020/11/18/pandemic-politics-qanon-and-a-note-on-the-elections/
What you call the “traditional information ecosystem” was simply a product of the industrial age… These institutions spoke with authority from on high.
The digital earthquake .. unleashed a tsunami of information against this system … 2001 doubled the volume of information accumulated in all previous human history. The year 2002 doubled 2001… “What on earth is going on?”
What is going on is a crisis of authority that is battering the institutions we have inherited from the industrial age – government, media, business, science, the university – as a system that based its legitimacy on information scarcity is unable to cope with overabundance. What is going on is that the public is now talking back in spades: experts, pseudo-experts, ordinary people, extremists, frauds, cranks, an uproar of voices around every attention-worthy topic as discussion is conducted within a digital Tower of Babel.
Arnold notes we feel more threatened by other points of view. Something has to give.
Either a) we find bubbles without other points of view, or
b) we pass laws outlawing other POV (when other POV are outlawed, only outlaws will have other POV — Steve Sailor exhibit A., Exhibit Q – QAnon) – Political Correctness is about social norms excluding politically incorrect POV, or
c) “WE” stop being threatened by other POV.
How to get to (c) less threat by Free Speech?
*** We need Republicans as Professors and Teachers ***
And a lot more effort, and status, for finding Truth – and being against non-Truth.