3 ms·

> their voice cannot compete with institution-sponsored propaganda machines When has the common person alone ever had the voice to compete with large instituti

by ok_dad 3y ago

> their voice cannot compete with institution-sponsored propaganda machines When has the common person alone ever had the voice to compete with large institutional voices? I think never, except today it’s actually easier for a lone person to get a huge platform without owning a newspaper. Suppose we pass laws allowing the executive branch to limit speech that’s against national security. Who is to say a future government won’t use it against us to limit our freedoms rather than a foreign agent’s? We already can see several laws passed to limit terrorism have instead allowed the government to spy on regular citizens and other such abuses. Now, in the name of “national security” we want to move away from free speech and start censoring things according to the current administration’s wishes? No thank you!

solardev 3y ago
> When has the common person alone ever had the voice to compete with large institutional voices? I think never, except today it’s actually easier for a lone person to get a huge platform without owning a newspaper. Very good point! > Suppose we pass laws allowing the executive branch to limit speech that’s against national security. But I don't think this necessarily follows. In the US, government is always the default bogeyman for "authoritarian overreach", but that is so rarely true anymore. I can't remember the last time the executive branch (or any branch) tried to oppress me or take away my sacredly-held freedoms. It's almost always a big corporation or rich man or another: Meta/Twitter/Musk/etc, or a healthcare company, or some TV personality, or some healthcare/gun/religious fanatic lobby. Why does "we as a society should decide how and when to regulate speech" necessarily lead to "the opposing party's president is going to censor me"? If anything this is just a call for more direct democracy instead of two-party elitism, no? It's not so much a battlecry against government, but of the co-optation of government by the elites -- which are almost always tied to wealth. What really protects the common person is other common people, who only have power in more democratic traditions, not by weakening democratic governments in favor of uber-rich libertarians and corrupt crony capitalism.

by ok_dad 3y ago

solardev 3y ago

> When has the common person alone ever had the voice to compete with large institutional voices? I think never, except today it’s actually easier for a lone person to get a huge platform without owning a newspaper. Very good point! > Suppose we pass laws allowing the executive branch to limit speech that’s against national security. But I don't think this necessarily follows. In the US, government is always the default bogeyman for "authoritarian overreach", but that is so rarely true anymore. I can't remember the last time the executive branch (or any branch) tried to oppress me or take away my sacredly-held freedoms. It's almost always a big corporation or rich man or another: Meta/Twitter/Musk/etc, or a healthcare company, or some TV personality, or some healthcare/gun/religious fanatic lobby. Why does "we as a society should decide how and when to regulate speech" necessarily lead to "the opposing party's president is going to censor me"? If anything this is just a call for more direct democracy instead of two-party elitism, no? It's not so much a battlecry against government, but of the co-optation of government by the elites -- which are almost always tied to wealth. What really protects the common person is other common people, who only have power in more democratic traditions, not by weakening democratic governments in favor of uber-rich libertarians and corrupt crony capitalism.