So the panel advising the PM on censuring the internet is an industry spokesperson, a corporate media interest, an angry Twitter rage tech person…
…a lawyer, a state wonk and someone who used to sing Popera?
And this isn’t a joke?
The feral defense of a panel advising the Prime Minister on censorship of the internet is funny & its Twitter abuse ironic but the issue isn’t who is on the panel, the issue is that there are no civil rights & free speech academics or activists on it!
Tribalism aside you can’t seriously think that’s ok???
This is for advice on one of the most important issues of our time, regulation of social media behemoths who have crowded the public town square with every variation of skinhead, white supremacist, anti-vaxx, and Infowar alt-right hate trolls.
That’s a huge balancing act when it comes to free speech and the solution to that problem can’t be micro aggression policing millennial snowflakes alongside Generation Y victim enablers, toting emotional support peacocks with gender binary woke vegan activists as gatekeepers.
Instead of arguing for our values and being inspirational about defending free speech while enabling agency for those deprived power and platform, the debate from the Woke Left is all about deplatforming whatever is defined as hate speech and in the age of subjective rage, most of the people on the PMs advisory panel have all vocalised pretty ambitious desires to ban a lot of speech as hate speech.
I’m guessing by even suggesting there should be some civil rights activists and free speech academics on this panel I’m already being a heteronormative patriarchal cis-male war criminal?
That’s how dementedly tribal this debate is getting.
While Action Station want Jacinda to go way further than simply regulating social media, Public Address ran a Shit Talking blog attacking commercial media’s dynamic of elevating confrontational opinions for ratings as if it was something just discovered last week. With all the insight of a year one media studies student, the blog calls on deplatforming media who engage in controversial opinions while at the very same time as calling on everyone to get Herald subscriptions to support ‘real journalism’.
Note it’s not the market dynamics of an unregulated media industry gaining monopoly positions, oh no, it’s right wing arseholes with opinions that we desperately need to censor.
Look, I don’t like most of the right wing pundits either, but if your ‘hate speech’ threshold is Mike Hosking, then you are the threat to democracy, not Mike bloody Hosking.
The solution to the central premise in the Public Address blog is that we need a properly regulated media environment, not propping up the NZ Herald! The public town square has been over run because the Government left it to the free market to define, and now that’s been a failure everyone wants to start blaming symptoms rather than root causes.
Like the housing market, like the dominance of the overseas banks, and oil companies and supermarkets, we have another market failure here, that’s why right wing arseholes get more air time. The cosy duopoly between Fairfax and NZME is the issue with the lack of real alternate voices outside the narrow paradigm expressed in corporate media, but a regulatory reflection isn’t the focus here, it’s banning speech we don’t like and are offended by.
I’ve seen on my social media feeds what many of my woke comrades would ban and it makes me as nervous as allowing the alt-right trolls to pollute the dialogue.
The truth is that we are already stained by social media in ways we are barely comprehending. The ability to alienate one another means gaining solidarity on the truly important issues of our day like radically adapting for climate change gets buried in a cacophony of personal outrage and virtue signalling from both sides of the political divide.
Public funding and a radical reshape of the obligations current media corporates have to fund public square broadcasting is the solution here, not banning Mike Hosking and forming panels with a very narrow view on free speech.