DiscussMormonism.com

As our society increasingly transmits information on digital platforms, we are grappling with an uncomfortable truth: Social media can give equal power to ideas that heretofore were kept on the fringe. Facebook is the digital Speaker's Corner of the world. And when some of the speakers start to get a large audience, it can have a detrimental impact.

Today, Facebook banned Alex Jones, Infowars, Louis Farrakhan and Milo Yiannopoulos among others, as being dangerous. It is, unambiguously, the rise of the nanny state within the company whose motto used to be 'move fast and break things'.

A great read about the early days of computers is Steven Levy's Hackers, going back to the earliest days of digital computing at M.I.T., when geeks would stay up all night to spend a precious hour at a PDP-1. Levy synthesized the hacker ethic he observed at follows:

Access to computers should be unlimited and total.
Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative
All information should be free.
Mistrust authority–promote decentralization.
Hackers should be judged by their hacking.
You can create art and beauty on a computer.
Computers can change your life for the better.

It is not too difficult to see the connection between the early hacker ethos and Zuckerberg's 'move fast and break things'. There was and is a very strong libertarian ethos in computer culture (See Peter Thiel).

The medium is the message, and by its nature the internet affords the outcasts of the world a place where John 3:16 signs can pop up as digitals ads all over the world for the fraction of the cost of a ticket behind home plate. The internet is a great place to be a 'fisher of men'.

But unfortunately, a lot of bad men go fishing on the internet.

Facebook is the High School Yearbook of the world. What should be allowed?

Part of being the party of evidence and science means that information that does not fit the liberal narrative must be suppressed and treated properly through the filter of professional (leftist indoctrinated) journalism in the interests of public policy. Leftists are such evidenced based and emotionally detached thinkers they might not be able to distinguish fact from error when alternative views are presented which have not been doctored/approved by the DNC. Now if we could only get Hannity and Limbaugh off the air.

MeDotOrg wrote:...

Facebook is the High School Yearbook of the world. What should be allowed?

There are sufficient laws in place to cover this question, correct? (eg Does Facebook have a legal obligation to "not-ban"?)
Personally, it seems that Facebook does not increase the "power" of a Jones or Farrakhan - it simply provides another outlet for whatever they are selling.
Your inferred point in the OP could easily be applied to the printing press....do we ask this same question of Kinko's 20 years ago?

eta: the great thing about the internet is that bring an idea quickly to a large number of people while also insisting that the same idea be forgotten quickly by a large number of people (see also cat memes).

I've long thought free speech was important, because you have to give everyone a chance to hear everything. The underlying assumption there is that people have to be able to make up their own minds about things. Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. Etc.

The problem is that most people have a deficiency at analyzing information. I think it's primarily laziness and a lack of time. If there's one thing the information age has shown, it's that the average person is daft, and prefers to ignore anything that makes them uncomfortable. All of the greatest knocks against democracy are showing up to slap us in the face. Stupid people have been given a voice, and they are coalescing with other stupid people to gain strength. Hence, Trump and the GOP.

I'm not optimistic humanity will survive. We're smart enough to kill ourselves and too stupid to prevent it.

Liberal democracy is being challenged from all sides, around the world, and suffering incredible reputational damage. We're also seeing alternative forms of government on the rise, such as the hybridized authoritarian government of China whose Belt and Road is the kind of paradigm changing initiative that could mark a watershed in the shift of global power and influence.

To my mind it seems to all center around a shift in the West from values-based ideological views to identity-based ideological views...with the caveat that there is a large amount of overlap between them. Or, perhaps its better said it's more of a return to the nationalism and tribalism that fed constant warfare across Europe leading up to the two world wars. The success of liberal democracy has been largely due to it's ability to appeal to something that could transcend borders. We've long used our national identity as a rallying point, but behind that identity has been a view that the United States represents something more than a people with a shared heritage and identity. I've raised the question on the board before, at multiple points spanning years, as to what values we might hold in common regardless of party affiliation or political views and it's been interesting to see this meet with ever increasing disdain. It used to be the BCSpaces and subbies of the board who immediately shut that down. But over the last couple of years the idea we don't have common values any more has become widespread and voiced by people from all sides.

It seems that the influence that social media enjoys feeds this. I suspect that in real life most of us recognize the people with whom we associate as more wholistic people that share common interest and concerns. But the voices on the news, the feeds, and the anonymous message board battles don't highlight those points but instead dehumanize and create separation instead.

I think humanity is very capable of surviving. But I think it's more and more likely that the coming generation will be one that rediscovers and embraces authoritarianism both abroad and at home. And I don't know that it's a given we'll relearn the lesson of history and shake it back off with renewed commitment to the values of liberal democracy. Hell, if forced I'd probably put my money on our inventing A.I. that we hand over the reigns for making decisions that, over time, become our primary decision making entity. Whatever role humans have at that point might be purely as figureheads. And would that be a bad thing? I don't know. We're certainly seeing the complexity of issues and of modern society overwhelming the ability of our current organizations to cope it seems.

I recalled having a discussion on the board about a book I had read years ago that touched on the topic of complexity outstripping the capacity of a system leading to a collapse in social complexity. Took a moment to find it but here's a link:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 46#p446046

The problem is that most people have a deficiency at analyzing information.

That's why we need the mainstream media to analyze and explain this information for us. We must look to China and the former USSR to lead the way and get rid of our outdated free speech laws written by slave owners several hundred years ago.

ajax18 wrote:

The problem is that most people have a deficiency at analyzing information.

That's why we need the mainstream media to analyze and explain this information for us. We must look to China and the former USSR to lead the way and get rid of our outdated free speech laws written by slave owners several hundred years ago.

Sincerely, ajax, do you see issues with the way information is received and not just provided that deserves consideration?

subgenius wrote:Your inferred point in the OP could easily be applied to the printing press....do we ask this same question of Kinko's 20 years ago?

Yikes. This is one of your worst analogies.

ajax18 wrote:Now if we could only get Hannity and Limbaugh off the air.

It appears that of late Hannity’s neck is attempting to swallow his head. Almost as if it knows better and is doing what it can to resorb the offending tumor in a last ditch attempt to save itself from having to listen to his continual whining.