
The global gag on free speech is tightening - Reedx
https://www.economist.com/international/2019/08/15/the-global-gag-on-free-speech-is-tightening
======
mindfulhack
Speaking of censorship, here's a full text of the article so you can actually
read it:

[http://archive.is/27LV3](http://archive.is/27LV3)

------
helen___keller
I always wonder why discussion about this issue does not state the obvious:
the internet is the perfect tool for radicalization, even inadvertantly. This
is why authoritarian governments control/limit access to the internet and why
free countries see so much violence, conflict, and polarity that ironically
appears to be curtailing free speech.

Theres a reason the information revolution is a "revolution". The days of
typical mass media are over, and society is going to take a few years or
decades to learn how to function smoothly again.

~~~
manfredo
Because this conclusion is not only far from "obvious" it likely is not the
case at all. The majority of the US population was internet connected by just
after year 2000. 2/3rds by 2005. By comparison crime is at 50 year lows, and
contrary to the public narrative the percent of the population that approves
of immigration is at its highest levels [1]. We aren't seeing "so much
violence", that's just counterfactual.

For the most part, I see allegations of internet radicalization coming from
groups like traditional media and TV that have a conflict of interest with
online platforms and have a vested interest in portraying them as harmful.

1\. [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/immigration-polls-
dona...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/immigration-polls-donald-
trump.html)

~~~
helen___keller
> contrary to the public narrative the percent of the population that approves
> of immigration is at its highest levels

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

I can agree perhaps it's not as obvious to those who spend less time on the
internet or in different circles, but here's some examples I've seen of
internet radicalization:

\- Person sharing an image on Facebook that states it is your patriotic duty
to shoot the Clintons on sight (shared after the Epstein suicide, not in 2016)

\- A Facebook group about train memes and urbanism became viral, and now every
week there's an anti landlord thread where people repeatedly share images of
guillotines and make jokes about how Mao was right to murder landlords

\- /r/the_donald is a perfect example. In the early debates before the primary
began it was a very lighthearted subreddit mostly making fun of Jeb Bush. By
the time Trump won the nomination it became a vile and conspiratorial
cesspool.

-subreddits associated with following WikiLeaks and such that essentially became broadcast channels for various conspiracy theories (deep state, Clintons, that sort of thing)

\- The top comments on just about any popular politicians Twitter will just be
the opposing group accusing the politician of being corrupt, incompetent, etc
etc

\- open comments sections on news articles. Need I say more?

\- Facebook comments sections on news articles shared by mainstream news. Need
I say more?

\- The YouTube recommended video death spiral. I've seen a relative go from
looking up and watching videos of sermons + Bible discussion, to watching and
sharing "here's proof the rapture is happening in 2019", to sharing QAnon
conspiracies, in a matter of months. It's fucking depressing seeing that
happen to somebody you care about.

To me these are all radicalization. They don't all result in Mass violence
(maybe none of them do), but it pushes people's opinions very effectively
outside of what's mainstream and otherwise "acceptable" in society, hence why
I call it radicalization.

~~~
manfredo
And when Bush was president, people were spreading conspiracies that he
arranged the 9/11 attacks to start wars in the Middle East. Heck, some of my
high school teachers said Bush fraudulently won th 2000 election. Comment
sections online have been shitshows since... forever? Similarly, rapture
claims have been around since long before the internet even came into
existence.

In order to demonstrate that the internet causes radicalization, you actually
have to show at least a correlation between internet use and radicalization.
And it takes even more to demonstrate a casual relationship. And we don't even
have a clear correlation between the internet and "radicalization". In fact,
the relationship we do have is an inverse correlation.

> but it pushes people's opinions very effectively outside of what's
> mainstream and otherwise "acceptable" in society, hence why I call it
> radicalization.

Has it? What unacceptable opinions have seen an increase? Over the last couple
decades, support for immigration has grown. Opposition to gay marriage has
waned. These are just a few examples.

I frequently find that those who point to "radicalization" online actually
have a much narrower view view of what is socially acceptable than the broader
society. Hence, why most of the allegedly "radical" views being spread online
are not what the general populace considers radical.

~~~
helen___keller
> And when Bush was president, people were spreading conspiracies that he
> arranged the 9/11 attacks to start wars in the middle East. Comment sections
> online have been shitshows since... forever?

I'm not sure how this helps your case. 9/11 conspiracies flourished on the
internet.

> Similarly, rapture claims have been around since long before the internet
> even came into existence.

Sure, but the internet enables it to spread to people who weren't previously
involved in those communities. Maybe it just becomes more real when you see it
happen to someone you care about.

> What unacceptable opinions have seen an increase?

Well, according to the original post, we've seen an increase in support for
suppression of objectionable speech ("cancel culture"). We've seen an increase
in support for violence against those with differing opinions (antifa, etc),
and more to the point the black-and-white labeling of opposition that would
lead you to feel a bunch of idiot far-right trolls count as nazis and thus
deserve to be punched.

If you don't think the internet aided the rise of these opinions, you probably
don't spend much time on lefty internet.

> Hence, why most of the allegedly "radical" views being spread online are
> pretty mainstream.

Well, perhaps you're right that the word "radical" is wrong. What we're seeing
maybe could be described as an expansion of the overton window in all
directions, which makes total sense given the nature of the internet vs the
nature of mass media.

I mean apparently even being a flat earther is now a viable mainstream opinion

~~~
manfredo
I can't really see what you're trying to convey. Much of your comment is
internally contradictory. For example:

> Well, according to the original post, we've seen an increase in support for
> suppression of objectionable speech ("cancel culture"). We've seen an
> increase in support for violence against those with differing opinions
> (antifa, etc), and more to the point the black-and-white labeling of
> opposition that would lead you to feel a bunch of idiot far-right trolls
> count as nazis and thus deserve to be punched.

> If you don't think the internet aided the rise of these opinions, you
> probably don't spend much time on lefty internet.

Here you're saying that the spectrum of allowed views is narrowing, and there
are greater objections to otherwise acceptable ideas.

> Well, perhaps you're right that the word "radical" is wrong. What we're
> seeing maybe could be described as an expansion of the overton window in all
> directions, which makes total sense given the nature of the internet vs the
> nature of mass media.

> I mean apparently even being a flat earther is now a viable mainstream
> opinion

And in the subsequent section here, you're saying that the range of acceptable
ideas is actually expanding in all directions. I'm really not sure what it is
you're trying to say, since this directly contradicts the previous section.

The point I'm making is that much of the "radical" ideas seen online are not
radical at all - or at least aren't new or unprecedented. People are seeing
outlandish views on the internet and concluding, "look! The internet is making
this movement spread!". In reality people with those views already existed,
and there's no evidence to say that the internet increases the prevalence of
those views. You have anti-vaxxers today, and back in the 90s you had faith
healers and other denial of modern medicine.

------
throwawaysea
Paywall, so I can’t read the full article. But I’m curious if they mention
corporations gagging free speech in the digital town squares of Twitter,
Facebook, etc. And more broadly with deplatforming running amok.

~~~
marmaduke
> corporations gagging free speech in the digital town squares of Twitter

See the other comment for the full text without pay well. They mention a few
times how Twitter is a town square where 'mobs' of people denounce individuals
for saying the Wrong Thing. Corporations though? Nope.

~~~
manfredo
Largely because the corporations are just following public opinion. The
article does cover how more and more people think that content they find
offensive should be refused by platforms. Corporations aren't the cause of
this loss of ability to speak in my view. It's the shift in public opinion,
and corporations respond to shifts in public opinion akin to a sailor
responding to changes in the wind.

