Is there any way to get in the way of these far-right media outlets spreading this kind of appalling content by strengthening and enforcing our hate-speech laws? Or is there a slippery slope there that I'm not considering?
Is there any way to get in the way of these far-right media outlets spreading this kind of appalling content by strengthening and enforcing our hate-speech laws? Or is there a slippery slope there that I'm not considering?
It's a slippery slope on a 90-degree angle downwards, unfortunately.
Our freedom of speech and the press means you can print just about anything, no matter how hateful, so long as it doesn't constitute a direct incitement to violence. And: Good! It wasn't so long ago that the state was shutting down Queer newspapers and intimidating their subscribers. Censorship tools rarely get limited only to the bad guys: Eventually someone comes and uses them against you.
We beat bad media outlets, of all stripes, by winning over their readers and leaving them without an audience. Eventually people *will* get tired of being lied to, being made angry, and being convinced to finance a 24/7 rage machine. We should be waiting in the wings to offer them something better!
Dang it. That does make sense, of course. However, it still feels in my soul like a paradoxтАФlike the "violence" part has perhaps been too narrowly defined. I mean that in the sense that it allows any fashy halfwit to run for office and say all sorts of dog whistles and lies directly to a radicalised demographic, but still enjoy a fairly smooth ride even in the MSM. Canadians are particularly active on deregulated extremist far-right platforms, and we're witnessing how fragile society can be when radicalised people feel heard in the mainstream, let alone when they are handed actual power. That is, in turn, even worse for marginalised groups.
I hope so much that you are correct about audiences. What I have witnessed in my work as a social media manager and as a Very Online PersonтДв has been ... discouraging. I hope all this anger activates the average person into making more deliberate and considered choices, rather than buying into interference that confirms their rage, or letting harmful messaging become normalised by their chosen platform's overlords. I hope we collectively find a way to combat free slop with inventive and compelling messaging strategy for facts, but without undermining good journalism financially.
Thank you, as always, for the marvellous work that YOU do.
Is there any way to get in the way of these far-right media outlets spreading this kind of appalling content by strengthening and enforcing our hate-speech laws? Or is there a slippery slope there that I'm not considering?
It's a slippery slope on a 90-degree angle downwards, unfortunately.
Our freedom of speech and the press means you can print just about anything, no matter how hateful, so long as it doesn't constitute a direct incitement to violence. And: Good! It wasn't so long ago that the state was shutting down Queer newspapers and intimidating their subscribers. Censorship tools rarely get limited only to the bad guys: Eventually someone comes and uses them against you.
We beat bad media outlets, of all stripes, by winning over their readers and leaving them without an audience. Eventually people *will* get tired of being lied to, being made angry, and being convinced to finance a 24/7 rage machine. We should be waiting in the wings to offer them something better!
Dang it. That does make sense, of course. However, it still feels in my soul like a paradoxтАФlike the "violence" part has perhaps been too narrowly defined. I mean that in the sense that it allows any fashy halfwit to run for office and say all sorts of dog whistles and lies directly to a radicalised demographic, but still enjoy a fairly smooth ride even in the MSM. Canadians are particularly active on deregulated extremist far-right platforms, and we're witnessing how fragile society can be when radicalised people feel heard in the mainstream, let alone when they are handed actual power. That is, in turn, even worse for marginalised groups.
I hope so much that you are correct about audiences. What I have witnessed in my work as a social media manager and as a Very Online PersonтДв has been ... discouraging. I hope all this anger activates the average person into making more deliberate and considered choices, rather than buying into interference that confirms their rage, or letting harmful messaging become normalised by their chosen platform's overlords. I hope we collectively find a way to combat free slop with inventive and compelling messaging strategy for facts, but without undermining good journalism financially.
Thank you, as always, for the marvellous work that YOU do.