Free speech yes, but who do we believe? First impressions may be quite wrong and disestablishing them can sometimes be futile.
Like so many others, we are a blended family with, in our case, a total of four children aged 24 to 29. This means we have straddled two different eras, involving massive changes in lifestyle. We have experiences ranging from in-school banking with money boxes, and a savings culture drilled into us, through to card-carrying wallets without cash but for the utilisation of credit/debit cards.
That is now transiting to smartphone pay systems such as Applepay, which I believe encourages a lack of monetary discipline. The next step is not far away, and the rate of change is speeding up.
In fact, I believe the only thing restraining more rapid advancement in many areas is our psychological inability to cope with the speed of change. For example, the older members of our tribe are technologically semi-literate, while the 24-year-old is approaching genius level. It is wearying, hearing, “out of the way, let me do it”.
There is another reason, I suggest, that there is more profit to be made by staggering advances.
Most individuals, and therefore societies, can cope with only moderate incremental change. If we had access to the research and development divisions of big tech companies, we might be horrified at where a quantum leap would take us.
Recently, I read a quote indicating
that science fiction writers are a better guide to the future than nonfiction writings.
What led me down this path was a commentary on the nomination of Joe Biden as a Democrat candidate for the American presidency. Holman W. Jenkins Jr, in the Wall Street Journal, wrote “Joe Biden centred his rationale for running on a claim that Donald Trump referred to racists and neonazis in Charlottesville, as very fine people. Mr Biden probably is not connected enough to social media to know it, but this claim has been thoroughly defeated by pushback, led by Dilbert creator Scott Adams and others.”
Jenkins is correct. I raise this not because of the politics involved but to exemplify the serious influence social media can have. Jenkins quotes Jake Tapper from CNN, and the
Washington Post as endorsement. Most recently, Facebook has permanently banned a number of unacceptable users of its services.
“Dangerous” was the summation of their sites. Alex Jones, his media company Infowars, Laura Loomer, Paul Nehler, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos and Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam.
I am unfamiliar with a couple of them and will miss none of them. I don’t do Facebook or Twitter.
But it is irrelevant what I or anyone else think of these individuals. The question is why their opinions should be curtailed.
The one that intrigues me most is Louis Farrakhan, a most detestable individual. His connections with Democrats like Maxine Waters and others are public, as is a photo of Farrakhan with Obama. Recently he shared a stage with Bill Clinton.
A long time back I argued against allowing anti-Semite and holocaust denier David Irving into New Zealand for a speaking tour.
A protagonist talkback caller responded that it was better to defeat the likes of Irving by debating with superior argument. Trouble is, better arguments don’t necessarily win the day. There may be many countervailing factors.
Here’s an obvious example. In an election campaign it is down to the wire in the final television debate between two prime ministerial candidates.
One presents undeniable facts and reasons in a logical way but is dull. The other is not so well-versed in the points but is charismatic and emotively convincing.
In a world where concentration span is short, where feelings outrank logic, would it be surprising if candidate two was the victor?
I was raised that first impressions are the most important. That may seem obvious but there is a part two. Those first impressions may be quite wrong and disestablishing them can sometimes be futile. We have all experienced it, probably on both sides of a discussion.
Should big tech be regulated? Particularly because of Christchurch and then Sri Lanka, there is much discussion about what to do with big tech and social media.
Are global standards on big tech required? How does social media affect mental health? Should companies like Microsoft and Facebook, Amazon and Apple be subject to legislation before the united corporations of Silicon Valley control the world?
It will be telling who Facebook takes out next, for politics is the driving factor. Internet creator Tim Berners Lee said it had evolved into: “An engine of inequity and division; swayed by powerful forces who use it for their own agenda.”
How about, instead, freeing up the market by returning to laissez-faire basics. Maybe then there would be a healthier, more competitive market place.
Social media is neither good nor bad. It is the use to which it is put that matters. Just like guns and cars and
. . . words.
And one final question to ponder. Is Berners Lee right? Can democracy survive global capitalism?