John Kerry, not a fan of the 1st Amendment
- Thread starter crazed_hoosier2
- Start date
Wow, there is so much wrong here, I don’t know where to begin.
A few points.
First, the antidote to too much social media and too much disagreeable speech is not to limit speech, but better education. Today our education system, at its best, is teaching students how to jump through hoops, it isn’t about knowledge and thinking.
Second his reference to “disinformation “ necessarily implies that somebody will make decisions about that. Thats scares the bejesus out of me, particularly when you believe like I do is that the government traffics in disinformation now more than ever.
Third, he speaks of good government in terms of consensus and getting more votes. He is supporting cram-down government. Good government is about disagreements resolved with negotiating and compromises. That is not the same as determining consensus and then finding votes.
Finally, recent history tells us that governments that limit free expression are failing governments.
Yeah, one thought that sprung to my mind right out of the gate is who exactly he was referring to when he said that “the dislike of and anguish over social media is growing and growing and growing.”
He obviously doesn’t mean ordinary people. He clearly means the global governing class and others who might be present at a World Economic Forum event. “The Establishment”, if you will.
Because ordinary people clearly don’t have any dislike of social media, as evidenced by the volume of their usage of it. In fact, if ordinary people did dislike it, somebody of Kerry’s disposition on this issue wouldn’t have anything to be concerned about.
But, you’re right, there is a whole lot to unpack in that brief, two-minute statement.
A whole lot of people on here have lamented the ills of social media. Me included.
What part of that video evinces that Kerry is not a fan of the First Amendment? He rightly says 1A is a barrier to stamping out (govt defined) disinformation. As I read him, he’s saying that means his people have to work harder at the “ground game”— which I interpret as getting better at persuading people of their policy goals, etc. I like that. Something Freddie DeBoer preaches as well.
He’s also right that the nature of our govt and elections and politics has been changed by social media and the tech it represents and that we haven’t quite caught up to it yet. How could it not?
What part of that video evinces that Kerry is not a fan of the First Amendment? He rightly says 1A is a barrier to stamping out (govt defined) disinformation. As I read him, he’s saying that means his people have to work harder at the “ground game”— which I interpret as getting better at persuading people of their policy goals, etc. I like that. Something Freddie DeBoer preaches as well.
He’s also right that the nature of our govt and elections and politics has been changed by social media and the tech it represents and that we haven’t quite caught up to it yet. How could it not?
Disagree re cram down govt. You’re reading that into what he said.
Building consensus is not a bad thing. In fact, he’s using that word as a byproduct of compromise. And he’s right.
The ills of social media primarily for kids. For adults I don’t know. It’s a way to stay connected
Lots of bad stuff with social media for adults. Not saying the bad outweighs the good.
But Twitter et al were and are used to sow Russian (and other nations who wish us ill) propaganda— we see the results here. They were and will be used to organize riots during the Floyd protests. Their algorithms magnify the echo chambers and crazy voices in ways we never had before. They hastened the end of neutral editors and press, thus helping create a crisis of authority (alternative facts, etc) on nearly every issue. And they do this instantaneously.
All minds are being shaped and affected by it to varying degrees. Pointing out its bad side doesn’t mean you’re against free speech. And that blurb doesn’t support the thread title.
What does he mean when he says “the referees we used to have to determine what is a fact have been eviscerated to a certain degree”?
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think we just have a whole lot more options now.
As far as agendas, every single source has an agenda. That’s always been true, to a certain degree. It’s just much more pronounced now because we have so many more options.
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think we just have a whole lot more options now.
As far as agendas, every single source has an agenda. That’s always been true, to a certain degree. It’s just much more pronounced now because we have so many more options.
I get the distinct impression that he’s lamenting the role the 1A plays in this - not that he’s merely taking note of it, let alone applauding the restriction.
This is a man clearly wishing he and others in the governing class had more power to regulate speech.
As far as speech goes, especially political speech, social media is a tremendous blessing….specifically because it bypasses the gatekeepers he refers to as “referees”. We should be thankful those people have been shoved out of the way.
And, yes, I say that fully aware that there is a whole lot of bullshit spread using social media.
Ah, but you see, to somebody like Kerry it clearly depends on what that agenda is. If it’s an agenda to his liking, I gather he’d prefer a world where supporters of that agenda had a monopoly on the ability to promote it…without having to worry about voices of dissent disrupting it.
There are no neutral editors in the press. And there never have been. In fact, there are no neutral people.
And it’s nothing but a good thing that those people no longer exercise much control over the dissemination of information and ideas.
The answer to bad speech has *always* been good speech….not the suppression of bad speech.
And, once again, Kerry is clearly airing a lament about the 1st Amendment as a roadblock to his ability to “curb those entities”.
The title of my thread is entirely appropriate.
Countries (most notably Brazil…but also the UK, the EU, and Australia) that don’t have much protection of free speech are using what governmental levers they have to squelch speech they don’t like.
What’s primarily being done here is exerting corporate pressure of various kinds - to create financial pressure to curb speech.
Obviously, Twitter/X is ground zero of all that. But I get the impression that Musk doesn’t care all that much about its finances…thus quite publicly telling Bob Iger to GFY.
and gullible adults who never learned to think for themselves
I think he's generally talking about newspaper editors, mainstream media anchors, etc. Social media has helped eviscerate them, which can be true along with the proposition that they had it coming to them because they became so biased in their roles.
