Comment Of The Day: “The Facebook Whistleblower Thinks That The U.S. Needs More Censorship”

Little introduction is needed for this typically well-reasoned and clearly expressed Comment of the Day on the post, “The Facebook “Whistleblower” Thinks That The U.S. Needs More Censorship” by Extradimensional Cephalopod, except “Here you go…”

***

“So… it seems the Progressives have decided that Facebook needs to do something, and they’re basing everything on that. They’re not looking at all their options.

“The problem as they have described it is, “kids on social media are exposed to information which harms their mental well-being,” but they are only looking at options that involve putting rules and responsibilities on the social media companies.

“What’s wrong with this picture? Well, it ignores the responsibilities of the parent, the child, and the people who put harmful content on the internet in the first place. It ignores the question of how we can fill social media with edifying content instead (because that content is out there–there’s people on Instagram trying to help with body image problems), and the question of how the parent and child can work together to find that content (or just build a life outside of social media) while rejecting harmful content.

“The fundamental liability involved here is stagnation: known motivational limits. People build habits and addictions to things on the internet, because the internet is a source of instant gratification. This phenomenon is a manifestation of decadence: underregulated stagnation.

“The solution as the Progressives see it is dogma: overregulated stagnation. They want to put limits on what people are allowed to find on the internet.

“Granted, social media companies are definitely partly responsible for the problem, because their algorithms are indeed designed to get people addicted to social media and to show people anything and everything that will achieve that goal, regardless of how it shapes their worldview. This should not be surprising: that’s how they make money with sponsored and targeted ads. That’s how free media with advertisements has always worked, all the way back to radio dramas.

“If you want social media companies to make their services healthier for society (i.e. less mind-warping and addictive), then people will use those services less, and that ad revenue is going to go down. Social media companies will have to change their business model. It might involve charging their users, which in turn might affect people in poorer communities. That means the whole situation ties in with income inequality, which is also connected with all these businesses buying ad space in the first place to sell their products and services.

“As usual, the response will require some negotiation and coordinated participation from many different communities and groups if we’re going to do anything constructive. Constructive solutions are rarely unilateral, but they’re much more rewarding for everyone than anything we can force someone to do by law.

“I’d really like to see a world where the general public actually talks through all these aspects of the problem and comes up with constructive responses they’re willing to support instead of arguing about whether or not somebody should be forced to do something. Only when we can do that can we start building an economy where we just spread the useful work across more people instead of overworking everyone and forcing most people to pretend their jobs are necessary. (That’d reduce the corporate greed everyone hates so much, I’d wager.)”

7 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “The Facebook Whistleblower Thinks That The U.S. Needs More Censorship”

  1. “Constructive solutions are rarely unilateral, but they’re much more rewarding for everyone than anything we can force someone to do by law.”

    They also require finding actual common ground instead of saying “come over to where I am, then we’ll be on common ground.”

  2. There is a fundamental flaw in Extradimensional Cephalopod’s thinking:
    The whale from another dimension has assumed that certain segments of our society want to find common ground. The evidence is clear that they do not.

    The actions going back long before Trump was elected. We got a taste in 2008 with the harassment of Prop 8 donors and the same-sex marriage wars.

    Between the Prop 8 harassment and Trump’s inauguration, there was Operation Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS targeting the Tea Party, Operation Chokepoint, the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin, state AGs who sought to use RICO against opponents of certain environmental policies, and the FBI and DOJ spying on the Trump campaign.

    From Trump to the present, we have the whole Mueller investigation (which aside from some procedural trip-ups, came up with nothing), the Andrew Cuomo-Letitia James assault on the NRA (for using the First Amendment to protect the Second), a ramping up of social media companies muzzling conservatives, and now the actions of the Biden Administration towards parents who are objecting to critical race theory/mask mandates/NSFW material in school libraries.

    On February 7, 2017 you described Kurt Schlichter’s column, “The Left Hates You, Act Accordingly” as “unethical and hateful.” I disagreed then, and pointedly asked left-leaning commentators, “Should I believe your assurances, or my own eyes?”

    And what he described in the column of his you discussed on February 23, 2017 is coming to pass now. That much is also undeniable.

    The hard fact of the matter is that the “progressive” Left doesn’t seek common ground for solutions, they want to make sure that the uppity deplorables who forgot their place are put back in their place and are firmly made aware of what their place is. See Terry McAuliffe vis-a-vis parental involvement in the local public schools.

    So, let’s review the Facebook whistleblower: Frances Haugen worked hard to keep the Hunter Biden laptop under wraps. But I bet she had no problems with the unfounded claims of Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign in 2016, the lies that Republican health care policies would kill tens of thousands, or the phony claims that Trump called white supremacists “very fine people.”

    I don’t know if she was a set-up, or if it’s her own personal convictions. The former might be possible, but the latter is just as likely, maybe even more so. Quite frankly, if it is her own personal convictions, she is far more dangerous.

    But it’s clear what she wants. Conservatives – or those right of center – need to shut up and just give the left what they want. Otherwise, they get banned, lose a way keep in touch with families, and to virtually assemble with those of similar interests.

    There is NO common ground to be had when someone’s opening offer is, “I want you to shut up and just give me what I want when I want it.” It’s like Israel dealing with Hamas. You can’t compromise with someone who hates you and wishes you dead, enslaved, imprisoned, and/or impoverished. Your only option is to fight.

    • I think I see where you’re coming from, considering that most political messaging deliberately creates the impression of an implacable monolithic Progressive voting bloc. However, my experiences discussing politics with various people indicate to me that the monolith is an illusion, just like the Progressives are shown an illusion of a Conservative monolith.

      There are indeed true political extremists, as well as opportunists who are manipulating people in order to seize and maintain power. However, I’d wager that the vast majority of the people who fall under their various spells are merely afraid.

      The extremists and opportunists are telling their followers how to think and feel by telling them it is the only way to destroy the source of that fear. That’s why those people see only one path that end. However, if we can take away the source of their fears and present them with credible alternatives to get what they need and want, you’d be surprised what they’d be willing to understand and support.

      That’s the premise of my method for using deconstruction mindset on people:

      Deconstruction method:
      1. Make them comfortable
      2. Make them think
      3. Make them choose

      You can get more information about this method here: https://ginnungagapfoundation.wordpress.com/2021/03/22/the-deconstruction-method-or-arguing-on-the-internet-2-the-redux/

      What do you think?

      (P.S. It’s “octopus,” not “whale,” by the way. I’m not the Extradimensional Cetacean, although that would be pretty cool as well.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.