More calls for the State to protect us from the consequences of our choices courtesy of the Legacy Media ™ Guardian;
The main thrust of the argument is that, because the interface is addictive, it’s bad for us. A conclusion is then leapt to that the only way to moderate any negative impacts is State intervention.
Let’s go back a few steps before we decide to open the Ministry of Responsible Social Media.
What harm is being incurred and by whom?
Addictive screen layouts and content?
Would we prefer the screen design to be clunky and unusable?
Would we prefer content to be curated for us by a government regulator? Good grief, no!
But the author doesn’t take long to get to the real point of the article;
Ah, the worn out “Russians hacked the election” line. It’s not the addictive nature of the free services these companies provide, it’s the inability of people like us to curate the content.
Scratch the surface of most Guardian readers and every Guardian contributor and an authoritarian will soon be revealed.
Freedom of speech is the foundational right upon which all others stand or fall.
With the freedom of speech comes the freedom to be wrong and the freedom to follow false information. If you doubt that statement, ask a Guardian reader whether they think a Ministry of Truth to moderate fake news would be a good idea. I bet, with a little encouragement, they will agree.
Over at Tim Newman’s place, there’s a conversation ongoing about anti-Semites. Anti-Semites are offering an idea to the market place of ideas. The best way to deal with them is to give them the publicity they crave and let the paucity of their arguments be exposed for what they are. Shutting them down as “fake news” simply breeds conspiracy theories.