(Also puts on Glenn Loury hat and exclaims that if certain policy solutions cannot even be talked about not because they are unconstitutional but because they are ideologically anathema the quality of public decision-making is going to suffer)
The problem is that for most of the rational people in the world, calling vaccines safe and effective is calling balls and strikes...or better yet, “up is up and down is down”. So yeah, if you try to convince people otherwise in the middle of a pandemic, you are gonna get pushback.
Mr Drezner,
It will be interesting how many of the “anti cancel” types will protest the ongoing cancellation of people who express sentiment for the Palestinian side in the current conflict.
I’m not quite convinced, DD...a) that it’s dangerous b) that it’s even a crap sandwich c) that it’s any different than the way people normally argue their preferred policy position.
Isn’t it quite common to make a case as follows: “We should do X - doing X will provide benefits Y1,Y2,Y3 and avoid the harms of Z1,Z2, and Z3” and those benefits and harms always go in order of immediate/plausible/small-ball to less-likely/grand. So what if Y3 and Z3 aren’t universally accepted? Best/worst scenarios are part of argumentation. They are there to grab attention, to move people. Name a public policy debate subject, this same pattern always holds...
Maybe I’m more sympathetic to the censorship argument because I found myself completely out of step with my tribe during Covid - for a thousand reasons...to name one: at one point the federal government coined the neologism ‘malinformation’ - meaning when a person quotes or shares *factually true* information and data but they inconveniently do so in a way that goes against agreed upon support public health goals. Now, I don’t believe there is a secret grand censorship conspiracy, but the above idea should send a shiver up the spine of anyone who believes we live in a prosperous society *precisely* because we can engage in robust debate, including challenging the conventional wisdom if necessary...and yes, do so even in the middle of a pandemic. In fact *especially* in the middle of a pandemic.
The specific right to freedom of speech certainly is centuries old even if no 18th-century regime could live up to 20th-century notions of liberal democracy.
It’s not a “whole lotta crap” that our government agencies aggressively censor information and denigrate people they don’t agree with - that was ramped up to the extreme with/since Covid.
This should be concerning to you irrespective of your political persuasion - the government should be neutral and just call balls and strikes, rather than pick the winners.
"Legal experts have said the claim of a constitutional violation is weak because the First Amendment binds the government, not political campaigns, and Trump was president at the time, not Biden. The Twitter Files also show the Trump administration made its own requests for removal of Twitter content. And the payments to Twitter have also been identified as routine reimbursements for responding to subpoenas and investigations, not payments for content moderation decisions.
“Nothing in the new materials shows any governmental actor compelling or even discussing any content-moderation action with respect to Trump” and others participating in the suit, Twitter argued.
The communications unearthed as part of the Twitter Files do not show coercion, Twitter’s lawyers wrote, “because they do not contain a specific government demand to remove content—let alone one backed by the threat of government sanction.”
(Also puts on Glenn Loury hat and exclaims that if certain policy solutions cannot even be talked about not because they are unconstitutional but because they are ideologically anathema the quality of public decision-making is going to suffer)
Mr shorthairs,
The problem is that for most of the rational people in the world, calling vaccines safe and effective is calling balls and strikes...or better yet, “up is up and down is down”. So yeah, if you try to convince people otherwise in the middle of a pandemic, you are gonna get pushback.
Mr Drezner,
It will be interesting how many of the “anti cancel” types will protest the ongoing cancellation of people who express sentiment for the Palestinian side in the current conflict.
I’m not quite convinced, DD...a) that it’s dangerous b) that it’s even a crap sandwich c) that it’s any different than the way people normally argue their preferred policy position.
Isn’t it quite common to make a case as follows: “We should do X - doing X will provide benefits Y1,Y2,Y3 and avoid the harms of Z1,Z2, and Z3” and those benefits and harms always go in order of immediate/plausible/small-ball to less-likely/grand. So what if Y3 and Z3 aren’t universally accepted? Best/worst scenarios are part of argumentation. They are there to grab attention, to move people. Name a public policy debate subject, this same pattern always holds...
Maybe I’m more sympathetic to the censorship argument because I found myself completely out of step with my tribe during Covid - for a thousand reasons...to name one: at one point the federal government coined the neologism ‘malinformation’ - meaning when a person quotes or shares *factually true* information and data but they inconveniently do so in a way that goes against agreed upon support public health goals. Now, I don’t believe there is a secret grand censorship conspiracy, but the above idea should send a shiver up the spine of anyone who believes we live in a prosperous society *precisely* because we can engage in robust debate, including challenging the conventional wisdom if necessary...and yes, do so even in the middle of a pandemic. In fact *especially* in the middle of a pandemic.
Malinformation is a classic - “you’re right, but we can’t have that said because it hurts our chosen narrative”.
The specific right to freedom of speech certainly is centuries old even if no 18th-century regime could live up to 20th-century notions of liberal democracy.
The best form for information is to read many articles on the subject and try to piece the threads one’s self.
I enjoyed your article immensely.
e nós mundo de meu Deus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s not a “whole lotta crap” that our government agencies aggressively censor information and denigrate people they don’t agree with - that was ramped up to the extreme with/since Covid.
This should be concerning to you irrespective of your political persuasion - the government should be neutral and just call balls and strikes, rather than pick the winners.
But the government didn't "aggressively censor" information.
Check out the Twitter Files - then circle back with that thought.
I'm very familiar with the Twitter files and read several articles on it.
"Twitter’s own lawyers refute Elon Musk’s claim that the ‘Twitter Files’ exposed US government censorship"
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/tech/twitter-files-lawyers/index.html
"Legal experts have said the claim of a constitutional violation is weak because the First Amendment binds the government, not political campaigns, and Trump was president at the time, not Biden. The Twitter Files also show the Trump administration made its own requests for removal of Twitter content. And the payments to Twitter have also been identified as routine reimbursements for responding to subpoenas and investigations, not payments for content moderation decisions.
“Nothing in the new materials shows any governmental actor compelling or even discussing any content-moderation action with respect to Trump” and others participating in the suit, Twitter argued.
The communications unearthed as part of the Twitter Files do not show coercion, Twitter’s lawyers wrote, “because they do not contain a specific government demand to remove content—let alone one backed by the threat of government sanction.”
You cited CNN as your authority?
Have a nice day.
This is not a Trump vs Biden matter - stay on track