The great dream of the 90s was that information would set us free. 30 years later, we know how naive that was. Information is EASIER to control and distort now. Authoritarianism is far more viral than liberty. Tyrannies fare better in the information space than free nations.
People were supposed to joyously compete, cooperate, and challenge each other with the Internet. It worked that way for a little while, but then people started forming mobs to dominate and harass their enemies. Instead of glorious chaos, mere anarchy was loosed upon the world.
Emerging from the Cold War, our politicians and theorists were convinced ignorance was the only thing that kept tyrannies afloat. Once their people had access to the worldwide network of knowledge, it would be impossible to keep them in line. Wildfires of liberty would spread.
Those dreamers dramatically underestimated the ability of authoritarian states to adapt to the Internet and control it. They absurdly overestimated the ability of economic, cultural, and information "engagement" to liberalize the unfree world.
As with every other globalist endeavor, the creators of the Internet did not set requirements for freedom to participate in the new planetary network. In a rush of idealism and greed, they let every state climb aboard without using a brief moment of leverage to demand reforms.
The folly of the Internet era was really the latest iteration of the same mistake the free world keeps making - or, if you prefer, the same trick that keeps getting played on us: mistaking theoretical "liberty" for real, concrete, enforceable FREEDOM.
Information doesn't "set you free." Capitalism, constitutionalism, and simple laws universally enforced are what make people free. When those are compromised, any information medium can be corrupted to serve tyranny. In fact, info is more likely to be corrupted than not.
Once ownership of property and labor are compromised, the constitutional restraints on government are shattered, and the elite can exempt themselves from incomprehensible laws, information is just water sloshing over jagged rocks. The rocks remain, no matter how deep the water.
With the other instruments of authoritarianism sharpened and wielded in strong hands, information isn't that much of a problem. It can easily be perverted to make people less free, to turn them against each other, to push the "benefits" of authority while concealing its sins.
We created the Internet as a means of spreading intellectual freedom, but we didn't really use it to send the actual message of freedom. The means was not the message, and now the means has fallen largely into the hands of tyrants.
And we've learned over these painful decades of the Information Age that "intellectual freedom" matters far less than practical, tangible, real freedom. Dreams are wonderful, but what you can DO is what really matters. Does anyone doubt we're allowed to DO less than in 1991? /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Why would anyone think an America Last president-puppet and his handlers would be willing to defend America's allies in a moment of crisis? The world's predators certain don't expect that, and they are acting accordingly.
The lazy caricature of America First as nativism or isolationism had it exactly backward. It's when America Last democrats are running the show that our allies should be nervous, as Joe Biden's World on Fire demonstrates. America Lasters are easy to trick, roll, and intimidate.
America First foreign policy is rational and predictable. Allies and adversaries alike know what we want, and what we're prepared to do to get it. It's straightforward and more likely to be genuinely principled, instead of just TALKING about "principles."
The softer ranks of the Left think of jobs as privately funded social programs, so they're perpetually surprised that their policies make unemployment worse. In truth, jobs are an exchange of value that cannot be duplicated by any government subsidy program.
(The hardcore Left knows all this and desires both high unemployment and high perpetual welfare spending - those are its true policy goals.)
The soft Left sees paychecks as a form of entitlement that can be subsidized or replaced by government handouts.
The Left's stimulus and welfare programs revolve around throwing money at people and then watching in stunned amazement as it fails to recreate the prosperity that flows from gainful employment. They don't understand why their fake jobs don't have the value of real jobs.
The quest to create New Soviet Man begins with attacking every aspect of the old definition of humanity, pounding people into malleable ideological clay. Thus does "mother" become "birthing person."
It's no coincidence the radicals have been working so hard to redefine human sexual identity for generations now. They understood it was the perfect stress point to hit with their totalitarian sledgehammers if they wanted to demolish human identity and individuality.
The reality of human identity that carried us through thousands of years of civilization was destroyed, so that we could be reprogrammed with a blizzard of new, more politically useful identities. The common denominators of the human condition were attacked with great precision.
The devil will always be in the details, but in theory it shouldn't be difficult to create regulations that would prevent Big Tech from quickly and arbitrarily banning users or suppressing content. The process of silencing users should be slow, transparent, and subject to appeal.
That's all most people really want - some assurance they won't be muzzled by partisan gangs or silenced by tech oligarchs. If the gangs and oligarchs doing this stuff leaned to the Right, no one would have any difficulty understanding these concerns or acting on them.
Of course, if the overlords of social media leaned Right, their platforms would have been effectively nationalized years ago - about 48 hours after they silenced the first prominent figure of the Left, especially if it was someone from a preferred minority group.
One of the great schisms in conservatism and GOP politics - a key difference between passive and active conservatism, peacetime vs. wartime - is whether or not the Left is credited with having good intentions. The Left, of course, never reciprocates this concession.
Unfortunately, the Left is dedicated to attacking the very moral and philosophical pillars of the American republic and Western civilization, and they utterly dominate culture and academia, so conceding good intentions is a zero-sum game.
This is why so many GOP politicians and conservative pundits are of little use in pitched political battle, or eagerly turn against other conservatives. Having conceded the good intentions of the Left, they have also tacitly agreed to question the intentions of their own side.
State media operations, including what most of American media has become, are the most pervasive danger to journalism. Nothing degrades real journalism and erodes public trust in media more than sycophantic propaganda ops that claim to be "news networks."
Press freedom orgs are rightly concerned about hardcore oppression - reporters thrown in jail by tyrants or murdered by mobs - but they underestimate the danger of state media. They have trouble understanding that journalists can be the biggest threat to journalism.
Politicized media has a powerful corrupting influence. There is less and less room for real journalism as politicized newsrooms eat up more of the information space. Agendas dominate all coverage and push aside reporting that doesn't fit the ruling party narratives.