Facebook's Ministry of Truth actually works to strengthen the Right-Wing

 

Is this the real intention of the people who run Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and whatnot?  Or are they just as stupid as Wile E Coyote?

It is best to keep your enemies close, not only so that you can keep an eye on what they are doing, but also perhaps to coax them into being your friend instead. 

If everyone drove their individual demon out of their houses, it just serves to allow these demons to regroup and attack each house with an entire army. 

Same thing goes here.  When Facebook drives out all those who do not unquestioningly subscribe to their definition of 'hate speech', or 'community guidelines' (designed to ensure the ascendency of particular communities over others) or their agenda to normalise whatever they deem should be the norm, it just drives all these castaways out for regrouping in some other locale. 


What happens then? 

These castaways, like the young being assimilated by the 'information age' on Corporate Social Media, will just be surrounded by like-minded individuals, strengthening each others view that they are right because they are an entire Legion, many in number, and in a single location, thus drowning out the voices alternative to theirs. 

So right-wing sites burgeon as a result.  If they were on a pluralistic platform, they can be shaken more easily as there are many others about whom are of other schools of thought.  They can be swayed.  They can be bent.  They can even be broken.  Both shaken and stirred, or any other analogy you can think up to support the point here.  But  that's not going to happen if they are forced, yes forced, to only associate with each other by being tossed out by their ear.   

And how about the thinkers, the so-called 'radical' and 'controversial' thinkers, the philosophers of our Age who can point out the holes in both left and right and all that's betwixt and beside, whom are objective, whom can see truths that are hidden from those who go with the flow on both right and left?  What happens to them? 

They too will have to keep company with the right-wingers as mainstream social media that promotes the 'norm', the dominant flavour of the month, the celebrated culture or couture or any particular clime, will kick  them out as well for not abiding by the 'norms' of their platforms and actually daring to imply that any promoted movement is wrong, sinful, immoral, and so on.  If Big Tech was around during the times of Christ, i think it wouldn't be long before Jesus was kicked out for implying that any particular vice and fetish is immoral.  Zuckerberg is greater than God right? 

As a result, many of them might just be influenced by the right-wingers themselves as they are the only company they are forced to keep.  So the quest for Truth loses them as well.  How many actually will stick to their ground when they are kicked out by the 'liberals' and unobjective in mainstream social media, and then bashed by the right-wingers on platforms that support free speech so that the right-wingers can have their say?  Not many. 

That is when you will not only see a more defined polarisation of left and right and liberals (with all being defined by the west/whites), but also a growth in number as people who join one camp are only exposed to the ideas of that one side, and become more entrenched in such a view.  That's when the ultra-right wing whom might have been a mere tributary in mainstream social media will become a mainstream of its own on another platform.


That, girls and boys, just stifles free thought. 

Free speech by a person has to be checked on by that person being exposed to those who oppose it, or by their own friends from different schools of thought, as opposed to being forced to only make friends from their own school of thought.  That is when they are free to doubt themselves.  What this polarisation is eradicating is the 'freedom to doubt oneself' when people are thus separated to incubate and arise as part of a leviathan because they have the resounding support of a million likes by and on their own side of social media. 

So we need to end all this nonsense about 'hate speech'.  There is no speech that does not have hate in it.  Even one who talks about the love of God, it implies simultaneous hate for the devil.  Hate Speech in itself is not the devil.  It is the subject of hate that determines if such hate is virtuous or not.  'Hate speech' itself, as a term, shouldn't exist.  All that ought to exist are arguments and perspectives, and counter arguments and perspectives. 

The moment we come up with terms like 'hate speech', or 'hater', that is when we can use that as a reason to not listen anymore.  Demonising views simply because it doesn't sound nice, or seems to vilify groups, races, creeds, nations, etc, at the same time validates such groups, races, creeds, nations, as beyond critique.  There is no such thing as perfect races or cultures.  To bring in the idea of 'hate speech' is to perpetuate their deficiencies, and support the supremacy of those whom already hog the limelight and silencing all alternatives and dissent.  This will allow any evils to proceed with impunity in influencing and incorporating. 

And most importantly, demonising anyone for hate-speech and silencing them goes against the idea that people can change their views through argument and reason. It takes away the notion that the people themselves are the vehicle of their own change.  It is no different from what fascist states like China, Singapore, or N. Korea does.

What Must Be Done

1. The only way to validate whether something is hate speech or not so as to justify its censorship, is to prove that it is or isn't 'hate speech'. 

2. That can only be done through discussion.  And if discussion is needed to verify if something is 'hate speech' or not, then the term 'hate speech' itself becomes redundant as it won't be needed to censor anyone in the first place because there has to be a discussion to prove whether it is or isn't. 

That is when we move from focusing on the individual who said something to considering the issue itself.  That is when we are choosing to be objective, and promoting the value of being objective, and thereby undermining the subjective and ignorant foundations upon which true 'hate speech', or irrational views, are based. 

Where there is 'hate speech'/irrational views, there is room for the growth of rationalism through discussion and clarification.  The forward progress of rationalism is based on contention with the irrational, not ignoring anything that doesn't agree with it as irrational and deleting it.  That is ignorance, arrogance, culminating in stupidity and tyranny. 

Where 'hate speech'/irrational views are simply excluded because it is asserted that it is, the definition of rationalism itself will increasingly be confined to thinking as one is expected to think.    A Rational approach toward things cannot logically be asserted as rational unless it is proven to be so by engagement with the allegedly immoral, unethical, and irrational.  Censorship gets rid of the means by which rational thought can be proven to be rational thought as it will not be able to prove it is rational by engaging with the irrational.  That makes such censorship as conducted by Corporate Social Media to be anti-progress and anti-civilisation as it is this dialectical interaction between right and wrong that has given birth to all the sciences and all the progress that it has delivered.  

The subjectivity or arbitrary rules which is used to censor people fuels the very foundation for the emergence of irrational 'hate speech' as 'hate speech' is also based on subjectivity.  And that subjectivity is fuelled by people of one school of thought being excluded from interacting with another, and being forced to set up their own enclave for their own.  That fuels one-sided development on both Corporate and Alternative Social Media.  Kicking out dissenters to the dominant agenda is like trying to put out a fire by pouring petrol on it.  

edX

#facebook #censorship #twitter #parler #instagram