I don't even blame people for doing it. The problem we face is our body politic functioning poorly. Applying poor fit type solutions is unlikely to improve anything, more like move the problem around.
Likes as "I'm frustrated" protest will absolutely happen.
Either we embrace the first amendment ideas, or we don't. Which is it?
Traditionally, the answer to speech we don't like is more speech.
Talking about another element of this mess isn't popular, but I'm going to anyway:
The big media companies are in a GREAT position to apply that answer; namely, more speech to great overall benefit.
So, why don't they and or why isn't that working?
Public trust in the well established, domestic major media entities is low and that very seriously compromises their ability to perform as we need them to.
Why?
Opinions vary, and it's a good discussion to have.
My take is media consolidation has created massive conflicts of interest. Specifically, big media won't talk about issues that are a cost or risk to their owners, and or when they do talk about these things, those conflicts of interest run counter to the basic need we have for them to be critical.
A couple examples just to make it clear what I am saying here:
Iraq War
Net Neutrality
Media consolidation and ownership.
Review these topics and major media coverage. It's just not inclusive. Frankly, it's poor.
Now, look at indie media produced by people who really care about that stuff.
You will find great info, and some misinformation mixed in.
With the major media, you will find marginal info, and misinformation mixed in.
We are better off learning how to think for ourselves than we are having major media do it, and it's because of those conflicts of interest.
I don't have good answers. Wish I did.
Meanwhile, speech is getting watered down and or compartmentalized to limit the potential for harm, which also limits the potential for good.
And as an American, I really believe in the First Amendment, and this whole direction is not well aligned with why we have a First Amendment and the value it has.
The history of the First Amendment has been nuance and subtle application. It really isn't an either-or.
Even in this context, the first amendment gives two contradictory guidelines: freedom of speech of the individual and freedom of press of the organization collecting and resharing news from individuals.
6 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 26.4 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)
I don't even blame people for doing it. The problem we face is our body politic functioning poorly. Applying poor fit type solutions is unlikely to improve anything, more like move the problem around.
Likes as "I'm frustrated" protest will absolutely happen.
So it would be especially effective if you do not like Twitter or distrust them.
Traditionally, the answer to speech we don't like is more speech.
Talking about another element of this mess isn't popular, but I'm going to anyway:
The big media companies are in a GREAT position to apply that answer; namely, more speech to great overall benefit.
So, why don't they and or why isn't that working?
Public trust in the well established, domestic major media entities is low and that very seriously compromises their ability to perform as we need them to.
Why?
Opinions vary, and it's a good discussion to have.
My take is media consolidation has created massive conflicts of interest. Specifically, big media won't talk about issues that are a cost or risk to their owners, and or when they do talk about these things, those conflicts of interest run counter to the basic need we have for them to be critical.
A couple examples just to make it clear what I am saying here:
Iraq War
Net Neutrality
Media consolidation and ownership.
Review these topics and major media coverage. It's just not inclusive. Frankly, it's poor.
Now, look at indie media produced by people who really care about that stuff.
You will find great info, and some misinformation mixed in.
With the major media, you will find marginal info, and misinformation mixed in.
We are better off learning how to think for ourselves than we are having major media do it, and it's because of those conflicts of interest.
I don't have good answers. Wish I did.
Meanwhile, speech is getting watered down and or compartmentalized to limit the potential for harm, which also limits the potential for good.
And as an American, I really believe in the First Amendment, and this whole direction is not well aligned with why we have a First Amendment and the value it has.
We do not need ministries of truth.
That will, already has, and will continue to be abused.
Unacceptable. Completely unacceptable.
Even in this context, the first amendment gives two contradictory guidelines: freedom of speech of the individual and freedom of press of the organization collecting and resharing news from individuals.