Here. Read this.
Candide; or, Optimism
Then, we can properly discuss why the current offering is vacuous in comparison ?
Otherwise, citing that article as an example of "thoughtful" anything... is frightening... It's sophomoric, at best, in what it does say. Obvious in what it addresses... but just misses. But, in what it doesn't say ?
Mine isn't a criticism of Penn's opinion's about comedy. He's right on that score.
Mine also isn't a criticism of comedy generally as a potentially useful means of illuminating truths that many will refuse to see without first having the ironies of the age re-contexualized and acted out... in ways that allow us to make fun of ourselves... and others. But I would be remiss in allowing this pseudo-intellectual clap trap to pass as erudition without a couple of corrections.
First, it should be noted... the issue we're discussing here is directly relevant... as a free speech issue... in relation to comedy itself. I'm sure both Penn and Sacha have expressed opinions on that... which makes the obvious errors in play here all the more confounding. In fairness... it could be an editorial issue within the article... rather than their own limits that is the source of problems here... but... How many comedians have we already lost... because they're unwilling to accept the level of censorship being imposed on them now ? That's not a specific criticism of CDA230... but it doesn't exist independent of the social context ? (Maybe I mentioned that here already once ?) How does that fact... relate to Voltaire's choices in publishing ?
Second, relying on comedians to be... our intellectual touchstones... is obvious error. There is truth in comedy... the recognition of which doesn't require great intellectual prowess. If it did... it wouldn't be funny... almost no one would get it... as responses would be too slow to develop... many not getting it until the show was over... if then. The obvious is not the epitome ? But, there I go again... spouting obvious truisms ? Two exceptions in my lifetime, two that I'd accept as "more"... would be Robin Williams and George Carlin. Williams in particular had to work hard to throttle it back to ensure people would get it... Carlin a more careful craftsman and both more deliberate and more successful in linking his comedy to ideas.
Sacha Baron Cohen and many of his supporters believe that what Cohen is doing is showing the "true nature" of how awful people are, by getting them to do awful things.
But, Jillette argues, in a fairly compelling way, the opposite may actually be true. His belief is that Cohen is actually demonstrating how nice most people are, in that when they're approached by someone asking them to say or do something, they want to be nice and accommodate the person who's asking
Now, that IS funny... first in the element of their feigning ignorance in the subject while presenting it to us that way... while pretending we don't already know the truth. Then... back to the obvious in those truisms I keep flogging... Both are right. People are horrible, and most people try to be nice. But, mostly, either way, people are clueless. The most evil of bastards often think they're doing God's work... even by ridding Germany's gene pool of inferior genes by whatever means... and the friendliest and nicest people... are willing to go along with that... just "playing along"... being good natured... while mostly trying to avoid appearing more socially awkward than they already are for having had the misfortune of being publicly enlisted in supporting the (comedy/killing people... pick one) scheme.
Truly evil people, of course, know how to exploit our worst tendencies... while also exploiting our good intentions in service of that evil.
And, of course, Penn's "answer" in parry, if serious... is far more frightening than Sacha's thrust... while together they expose not just the fact of anti-semitism existing... but the banality of that evil of niceness that enables nice people in going along with gassing semites and burning them to ash in ovens.... in order to avoid a bit of social awkwardness. Penn's "niceness"... is the same root from which springs the success of the evils Sacha's humor seeks to expose. It matters little, of course, if that's all and only about people being too nice to Cohen... proving Penn's point... leaving unstated that the same behavior works for others, too, in getting good people to go along with evil. I suspect they're tag teaming you. Or, they are... whether they're aware of it or not.
If you are agreeing with Penn... you are the butt of his joke. If Penn is serious.. he's the butt of his own joke.
But, then, is Cohen right... not just in what he believes he exposes about how easily exposed evil people are... but, first, in his claiming the internet companies are knowingly and deliberately amplifying that evil... and, more critically, in what he claims that means we must do... in essentially allowing him to censor the internet... or demand that the giant companies comply with his view, and use their power to impose his opinion on others ?
Seen in that light... Penn's concern that Sacha's interest is perverse... that his humor is not done in good faith... is better justified, when you see it used in advancing an agenda intending to impose censorship.
The irony, of course, runs deep... as once that purposeful form of censorship is enabled... it is as likely to silence Cohen as it is to succeed in eradicating "anti-semites" from society. The illiberal tendency today... as seen in the free speech issue, not only in anti-semitism... is dominantly a feature of the left... and the voices intended to be silenced... are not those. For now. But, politics are as fickle as fashion.
Cohen's humor... mocks people. Penn, a nice guy, understandably objects... as he likes the audience. But, is the objection only about that style that dissembles to make the audience the butt of the joke ? Does Cohen not understand his own humor... not because it often exposes his victims as having human frailties... but because it exposes his knowing and hateful victimization of them ?
His speech, out of character, at ADL is bit too glib... but it answers much.
Here's the text of it.
All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.
In that... I'll agree with Penn Jillette... that Cohen's act often creates and encourages, not simply amplifies, something that wouldn't even be there without it. Cohen fosters, then mis-interprets people's overly eager willingness to go along with simple evil... including the evil in his misdirection... as exposing their deepest held beliefs... rather than their greatest weakness. Cohen's purpose, it seems... is truly misguided and malicious... and not merely devilish good fun ?
Cohen's argument at ADL then... isn't just about the channel... but broadly about the evil of free speech.
His act is one that depends on going around and encouraging people to act out of character... then mocking them when the do... And, that's fair... and funny. But, then, he says Google is doing exactly the same thing he is... with the only difference being that when Google encourages that same "out of character" behavior... it really means to foster that error and ensure it thrives and grows ?
I'll agree with Cohen that Google is evil... but his perspective on how and why that's true is a tad delusional in ascribing Google that singular intent. But, isn't the lesson we're discussing... not about singular intent... but about the evils of good intentions when people are caught up in going along to get along ? The fallacy in logic is called bandwagon... which can make good humor when exposed...but, when the Emperor is exposed as wearing no clothes... no one laughs at themselves for going along with the fraud the whole time... they only laugh at the Emperor's sudden realization in his being exposed ?
Being exposed as a pretender in public... is one of people's greatest fears. Public speaking an near adjunct to that. But, being exposed for truths in things hidden ?
Normal human behavior isn't all that funny... but, tricking a guy into walking around naked in public... that's funny ? It will always be true... that showing people their supposed betters are... stupid... will be popular. Sometimes it backfires... as Trump can never get elected because he's an idiot... and she's such a genius. And then we're forced to correct the error in our views... when reality intrudes. But, the former President and the Prince are naked and exposed... because the friends of Jeffrey Epstein are pedophiles ? Not funny. And, that's why we need a carefully controlled media... to make sure we cover that up... the way the broadcast media have ? Because the truth is far too important to allow us to know it ?
The greatest propaganda machine in history... “Just Think What Goebbels Could Have Done with Facebook.”.
Don't have to wonder much... see it happening every day on CNN, MSNBC... Facebook... as the Washington Post... the New York Times.
Cohen's argument... has technical merit that applies. The POTENTIAL power inherent in the technology requires our awareness... and containment of the risks. And, that's why we've required that those with editorial control MUST have editorial liability... while also insisting that "editors" must not have the power to suppress free speech... but control only their own. Transparent conduits of others work... don't have liability. Those who are exercising control over the content MUST have that liability that comes associated with the control. But, Goebbels ? That's not valid... yet. Because, what Goebbels could have done with Facebook... would still have depended on the rules limiting him. In Nazi Germany... he would have (no limits) found it a useful enough tool... but, obviously, it was not a necessity... given we got Nazi Germany without it. What about here in the U.S. today ? If Goebbels can run an internet company... spew what he wants... with no liability... while preventing others from countering his crap ? Cohen is not wrong... IF that's the rule... Which is why it can't be allowed to be the rule... editors must remain liable... and communications companies must remain impartial neutral conduits... with no ability to influence content... or participation.
That's why that's NOT the rule... as written... and that's why we have to disallow the fraud of those who are claiming the law intends exactly the opposite as what it says.
We have lost, it seems, a shared sense of the basic facts upon which democracy depends.
Facts like... our right to free speech... and our right to freedom from the imposition of a controlled narrative approved by... whoever Cohen deems sufficient as an arbiter of the truth... differentiating his interest in imposing control... from Goebbels interest... how, exactly ?
And social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to billions of people... if you give them editorial control.
Cohen is merely pushing ( which he has very good reason to think stupid people will accept)... to have us "oppose" authoritarians... by empowering them in doing everything he's saying is bad ? He's "opposing them" by pushing to empower them in quashing free speech ? Is he that clueless ? Or knowingly evil ?
So while it's good that Cohen admits that he's not a scholar, "Network Propaganda" is written by three excellent scholars, and perhaps we should listen to them, rather than a comedian, on this subject?
I've already pointed out that it is a farce to conduct this conversation by appointing comedians to serve as the intellectual guide rails... Now, having done that anyway... the author decries his own choice by offering up a bait and switch ? Who could have seen that coming.
Some people are just incapable of learning... so, while we disagree with Cohen's premises... we should agree with his conclusions... because of the evil wrought in editorial validation of facts by Fox News ? LOL!! Trapped in seeing the world through the bubble of academia... pre-Galilean, pre-Copernican in its understanding... they still believe the world in fact... revolves around their opinion ? Their ivory tower ideas fail... leaving the only alternative in the face of dissent from participation in their obvious farce... being to brute force the opposition into compliance with a hammer ? We've advanced so much since Galileo... so, let's re-ignite the Inquisition... and ban the publishing of things we don't agree with... only while not agreeing with Cohen's reasons to do it... as we do it ? If the threat of calling you a racist or an islamaphobe... doesn't force compliance... maybe a simple appeal to authority will work ? These people are idiots.
Cohen's attacks on Zuckerberg are just as "fake news" as some of the content he's complaining about.
And, we're full circle... back to me pointing out the truism... the unintended humor... in these people being a parody of themselves.
Zuckerberg claimed that new limits on what’s posted on social media would be to “pull back on free expression.” This is utter nonsense. The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of speech, however, this does not apply to private businesses like Facebook. We’re not asking these companies to determine the boundaries of free speech across society. We just want them to be responsible on their platforms.
More obviousness... left to me to point out ? If <Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech>... then, Congress can also make no law fostering the outsourcing of the abridgement of the freedom of speech... under the color, or the cover, of the law ?
Our right to free speech... is not merely a right to avoid the oppression fostered by our own government... leaving us wide open to be oppressed by someone else... because... "that's a private matter" ?
however, this does not apply to private businesses like Facebook
Wanna bet ? Facebook claiming (or, others claiming for them that) they have a right to abridge others freedom of speech... because they are not the government, and therefore are not limited by the Constitution... beyond being stupid... is an assertion of sovereignty superior to that of the government... when we have denied the exercise of that "right" even to the government we have empowered. The only speech Facebook controls by right... is their own. Period. The founding documents declare "We the people" to be the sovereign... and we have not elected Zuckerberg as King, enabling him in replacing us as the sovereign, and therefore putting him above the limits imposed in the fundamental law. The 10th Amendment... acknowledges our rights, not otherwise encumbered by our leave in the Constitution... belong to us... as the people... and it leaves to us our free and unfettered exercise... not as a commons to be disposed of as some bit of unclaimed property and usurped by corporate aggregators.
The CDA 230 specific, though... only grants a narrow immunity from liability under the law imposing liability, as an exemption (which enabling law thus also cannot be enabling of any abridgement of our freedom of speech... since Congress may not pass such a law)... and then conditionally... only if the exemption is applied to those NOT exercising editorial control over the work. The intent... is that ALL publishers remain liable for their own work... not that SOME publishers are exempted from laws that still apply to others. Prove only the fact that result exists... and the entire law will collapse as unconstitutional.
First, the point of Section 230 is not about removing liability, but about properly applying the liability to the party who actually broke the law. He's right that people can be sued for defamation. Because they said something defamatory. Section 230 makes sure that those who are defamed sue those who defamed them -- and not the intermediary tool that was used to publish the defamation.
Right. That works... exactly as long and as far as... the intermediary REMAINS aloof from exercising editorial control over the content. Refuse to remain aloof... any you ALSO won't share the liability for publishing something defamatory... if you refuse to publish it. But, then, you've pierced that veil... separating yourself from being aloof as an intermediary... and placing you outside the limitation on liability that applies only to the aloof neutral conduit... not those with editorial control.
Accept anything else... and the law fails on Constitutional grounds... due to First Amendment free speech, Fifth Amendment due process... or Ninth and Tenth Amendment concerns... rights retained and reserved... or Fourteenth Amendment... due process and equal protection. Corporations... aren't "private actors" outside the law... but creations of the state... created by law and bound to adhere to the limits of the law.
The logic that applies is still not different than that as applies in other technologies... you don't sue HP because someone used an HP printer to create something others find offensive... But, HP is a non-participant... free and clear... because blissfully unaware of how their products are used anyway, and can't possibly exercise control over that. Neither do you sue the makers of pencils and pens... or the makers of El Marko... even if someone uses one in defacing your car... should I say... guns don't kill people, people kill people... and banning guns won't stop the violence... rather than disarm the victims and make them easy targets. Extend that argument... and you get to insulating people from free speech... makes them more susceptible to manpulpation... not less.
Cohen is saying that by enabling and allowing the offending publication to exist... by not exceeding the CDA230 limits to impose editorial control and not remain a neutral conduit... the companies are promoting the content... which still makes no more sense than saying HP promotes child pornography... because a printer might be used to print a photo that violates the law...
But, it you do exercise control over the content (and its distribution)... you do have the liability... no other limit.
Facebook CAN run their business as they want... they just can't do that AND be not liable for how they do it.
But, the liability issues aren't a limit... if the abuses in interpretation extend to suppressing free speech... violating others fundamental rights... obviously, Congress does not have the power to write laws that enable that... so if you try to stretch CDA 230 to that limit... to enabling and empowering censorship.... it will break.
Cohen also seems to jump on the bandwagon of those ignorant of Section 230 by saying that these big internet companies should be declared "publishers," as if that would do anything.
Dismissing Cohen's argument due its presumed insufficiency in technicality... is a bigger mistake, by an order of magnitude in scale larger, than any Cohen has made.
What Cohen means... is that he objects to the waiver of liability... because he wants the companies held liable for PARTICIPATING in the distribution of others works when he objects to the content... and his "error" results from being told... by those companies... that they're not liable... because CDA 230 insulates them...
What's not rational in that... revolves around whether or not it is TRUE that the companies are exercising editorial control... and thereby knowingly promoting the material to which Cohen objects...
Maybe HP is out there knowingly and deliberately flogging high res color printers to known pedophiles in an attempt to juice the business? And, maybe they're making the content available, too... to drive ink sales ?
Yeah. Maybe not. My experience of the issue... suggests the opposite of Cohen's fears are true. Go to Zero Hedge... which used to be a great forum for discussion... and it isn't any more. A big part of that is the constant assaults by "the usual suspects"... Russian and Chinese paid shills as commenters... and the repetitive "the jews are responsible for everything bad" posters... The accumulated effect of that... is taken as proof the bots are bots... the brainless bigots are brainless bigots... and they're ruining the quality of participation... and the former utility of the site is diminished. Unlike Cohen... I have zero fear that the world has a decades long pent up demand for flamingly anti-semitic opinion... that will make Zuckerberg even richer if only he'd be more aggressive in promoting more of it. The same applies re the supposedly burgeoning White Supremicist and Antifa crowds... who aren't rising in the polls... soon to take over the Presidency... as the pent up demand for stupid opinion explodes across the internet driving clicks.
My objections are the same in principle as far as editorial control over content... but in the reverse... as I'm claiming that the companies are ALREADY not being neutral conduits of others works, as the law requires... but are already doing what Cohen demands... only, going way beyond that... not just editing or controlling and limiting their own content... but limiting others access to the utility... shutting them out of the public square.
I don't much care about anyone stupid enough to dress up like a WWII Nazi and march down Main Street in Portland... to provoke a reaction. The Nazi's we have to worry about... are the ones wearing suits and running hedge funds... and internet companies... not the ones playing dress up... or distracting us from what matters with antisemitic tropes. And those Nazi's aren't antisemitic... but they do oppose free speech.
It's not just the "fake news" problem... but the entire concept that anyone, anywhere, should exercise an interest in shutting down another persons communications... and think that was a rightful, justified, action...
The rest of the article... appears it goes out of the way... has chosen this vector to enable attacks on Cohen... in order to use him as the whipping boy... in order to ignore the issues in a bait and switch...
Cohen bad... but empowering companies in censoring speech on the internet... good...?
So, in context, what does Voltaire show us ?
He wrote in an era when there were still Kings. Criticizing the King might be declared treason. Cross the line and lose your head.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia aside... the world has changed, at least superficially... but the truisms of human behavior... haven't changed in a long time. And, yet, we still need to point them out ? People are still surprised by them ? Who is it that benefits... from insulating us from that awareness... other than those who seek to exploit the ignorance that is fostered ?
|
