This new political battle does not break down along left v. right lines. This is an information war waged by corporate media to silence any competition or dissent.
They try to minimize and dismiss what they are doing as a "culture war" to mask how repressive it really is.
The journalist who stepped up to demand I and others be censored by Substack -- because our critiques of corporate journalists constitute "harassment" -- is a disgraced Buzzfeed writer fired for plagiarism.
But it was applauded by other journalists, professors & a Google exec.
This is the real political battle that has taken center stage:
Will a small cadre of corporate media outlets and their employees control the flow of information and the internet, or is free thought, a free press and meaningful dissent still possible?
I always regarded the reporting I did with @Snowden about NSA not primarily about privacy rights but whether the innovation of a free and open internet could endure.
That is exactly the same question implicated by the attempt by corporate journalists to censor independent voices
Just to get a sense for how truly deranged is the moral panic driving journalist-led calls for online censorship -- now to include even other journalists -- read this amazingly deranged thread from a UCLA professor from last month. Really worth it:
Among many tactics corporate journalists are now using to disparage Substack, they constantly lie about what writers there cover, claiming it's all "cancel culture" and "trans issues." I almost never write about that. Here are the last four articles I wrote.
They're lost.
See also: does this sound like a trivial "culture war" or "trans people in bathroom" fixation?
This is why this is happening:
Corporate journalists are the leading *advocates* for online censorship. They're activists for it.
And they want to malign anyone opposed to that by minimizing opposition as an obsession on "trivial culture war" issues. It's anything but trivial.
Just like "torture" became "enhanced interrogation techniques" and "kids in cages" are now to be referred to as "migrant children detained in immigration facilities," journalists are now starting to refer to their incessant censorship demands as "content moderation challenges."
Also, if journalists want to continue to claim that any criticisms of their journalism constitutes "harassment" and "incitement of abuse," they're going to need to come up with a list of which journalists can be harshly criticized and which are off-limits. It's seems arbitrary.
One last thing: if a journalist decides to write an article urging that you be banned from writing -- in the name of Safeguarding Real Journalism -- hope that the one who does it is someone who just got fired for serial plagiarism within the last year.
As social media empowers uncredentialed people to be heard, society's most powerful actors seek to cast themselves as victims and delegitimize all critiques.
It is a majestic reversal of power dynamics, in which the most influential unite to silence everyone else.
Knowing you will be vilified as some kind of brute abuser if you criticize a New York Times reporter is, for many people, too high of a price to pay.
So people instead refrain, stay quiet, and that is the obvious objective of this lowly strategy.
Taylor Lorenz is a star reporter with the most influential newspaper in the US, arguably the west. Her work regularly appears on its front page.
Her attempt to claim this level of victimhood is revolting: she should try to find out what real persecution of journalists entails.
If you're going to insinuate yourself into polarizing political debates and report (or pretend to "report") on the powerful, you'll be "attacked" online. It can be extra toxic due to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc but it's still just online insults. That's not persecution.
With all the suffering and deprivation and real persecution in the world, it is utterly astonishing how often coddled, well-paid, highly privileged, coiffed, insulated, protected US elites posture as the world's most oppressed class. It's quite sickening and offensive.
Brazilian Supreme Court just invalidated the criminal convictions of ex-President Lula da Silva, restoring his political rights and rendering him eligible to run against Bolsonaro in 2022. He was leading all polls when convicted in 2018.
The court ruled the corrupt judge and prosecutors who convicted Lula, @SF_Moro, had no right even to take the case. That was the subject of one of the first articles we published in our exposés:
Deltan e Moro sabiam desde o início que o caso de Lula não cabia em Lava Jato/Curitiba. Mas eles queriam nas mãos de Moro - eles sabiam que ele estava trapaceando e iriam condenar Lula - então eles se envolveram em truques para mantê-lo lá. Nosso primeiro dia de #VazaJato:
Imprisoned without charges for fourteen years in Guantánamo, @MohamedouOuld is a symbol of humans' impulse to abuse power and their capacity for redemption.
The interview I conducted with him on Saturday is one I sincerely hope you will watch. A preview:
Particularly now, with Dems and their neocon allies who spawned the first War on Terror plotting how to launch a second, this time with a domestic focus, it is vital understand how arbitrary power of this kind ends up at least as dangerous as the enemy invoked to justify it.