“Control communication and you control the people communicating.”
-A.D. Aliwat
#freespeechmatters 03.07.2021
The premise that communication companies must take steps to monitor their content is inherently false. As a platform, big tech social media companies should host any speech that is not in violation of the law. I’m not suggesting that they should be legally required to. Respecting all human rights may just go a long way with consumers.
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are platforms that profit from your content. They do not publish their own content, which is why they enjoy protections from legal challenges when something unlawful appears on their platform. So why are they taking these unnecessary steps to combat what they continue to wrongfully label as misinformation?
Big tech is agenda-driven. They helped shape and format that national narrative and have a genuine interest in protecting said narrative. When theories are proposed that rationally conflict the national narrative, it’s only natural that they attack the information as being dangerous to democracy.
We’re being played by big tech, and we continue to participate. They believe that they have the authority to dictate the difference between right and wrong, and the best I can do is complain about it on their platform. These platforms understand the value they have: They allow us to maintain long-distance relationships relatively easily, they provide us with a platform with millions of users where we can advertise our business ventures for free, and they used to be a place where we could test theories and ideas to see how the general public reacts.
These platforms are beginning to feel like digital prisons. I find it hard to believe anything is authentic when I understand that every post is filtered through a team of strategists assuring that it’s appropriate for public viewing. Nobody seems concerned that private platforms are attempting to control our conversations. They want you to label your own friends and family members as extremists to illustrate your loyalty to the narrative. Is any of this beginning to make sense?
Comments