Nicola Staff asked 6 years ago
The question speaks volumes about the dilemma here, and the contrast with what the intention of the Internet was with its inception and launch, and what it has become. This contrast is a clear warning something is very, very wrong. When any operation begins to betray the purpose of its existence, and begins to not only underserve humans, but harm them in some way, this is almost always a powerful clue there is a nonhuman interloper distraction, disruption, or degradation of function on the part of individuals, or organizations. That is very much the case here, where individuals with messages that some people and groups find disturbing or offensive to them personally, are being singled out for special punishment, to banish them, to make their work inaccessible to others, even though their entire reason for living is an outreach with information, to connect with others and share their views.
While on the surface it seems logical that something like "hate speech" deserves censorship, such things, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder, and no two people will likely agree, in all respects, with all possible examples of what may be seen by some as falling in this category. That is why freedom works best when it is supported without hesitation, and without reservation, and without making distinctions about degrees of acceptability, palatability, and appropriateness. There are certain things universally condemned, but those are relatively easy to get agreement on, and enforce. There are things not suitable for children, there are things that are designed to deliberately cause harm by attacking people personally, and so on. But what is happening today falls far short of reaching such criteria and is very, very subjective, but the subjective assessments are being allowed to be the force of law, in the sense of those who have power and control over what appears on a given platform. While the law may allow this, that does not mean the behavior is appropriate, and is healthy and helpful, as opposed to being a negative influence and potentially quite destructive, for the long-term health of society.
When freedom and liberty are undermined, everyone loses in the end. There may be a short-term winner who gains ground and has power for a time because they may be on the top of the chain of command at the moment, and may benefit from wielding this power to their liking. Eventually there will be a backlash, and they will be seen as having feet of clay and will topple, to be replaced by someone else with a differing set of views to make their sacred cows protected, while savaging others and their views. This is how despots come and go, wielding power for a time, but then falling into disfavor, being discredited for their faulty ideas, and poor management and execution of policy, even things that can work but are mismanaged, and then they will be overthrown.
In almost all cases, the reason these things happen is not that people need novelty, and will flit from philosopher to philosopher, leader to leader, simply wanting something fresh and new to sample it, like they might a new type of cuisine on the dining table. This is orchestrated to happen, and powerbrokers manipulated by the interlopers see to who is in the corridors of power, and for how long. It serves this hidden hand to have political gridlock in most instances, except when there is a need for dark doings, and often that can be engineered to have a majority of supporters among the citizenry, by ginning up a cause for war that is convincing enough that people will rally around the flag, and it goes forward. By the time there is widespread death and destruction, it is too late to change course. Much of the damage is hidden from the public, and there will always be a new distraction, so they do not linger for too long second-guessing in the aftermath of the carnage. This is why society never seems to learn the lesson of prior wars, and they just keep coming.
Please login or Register to submit your answer
