Calling Trump "the man who is currently the greatest threat to current and future life on the planet", and connecting this straightforward, in black and white language, with "truth", is a very dubious statement. I am no fan of Trump, and I know he is seen as a danger on the ecological front for instance, but there are other world dangers where very many people have seen Trump as the solution for obvious reasons. Think of the geopolitical front, where China joined Russia, Iran and North Korea with the explicit goal of advancing autocracy against the human rights based international order. And we know for sure that those regimes considered Biden a weak leader (which may have encouraged Putin starting his war in Ukraine), while Trump is someone they rather fear and respect - while Trump did not even wage any wars. Trump also managed the Abraham accords, a unique chance for Muslims to start reversing the old ways of explicit Arab hatred against all things Jewish - but he hardly got any credits for it. So picturing Trump as particularly dangerous to the world is, to my understanding, not so clearly a "truth".
There are other considerations to make. First of all, half of the American people wanted Trump re-elected, and it is hard to believe they are all just idiots who do not care about truth, or about the "current and future life on the planet". Also, the reasoning that the personal issues of a powerful man would make it impossible for him to still make correct political observations, is not rational, it is a 'puritan' projection. All the more because there's lots of advisers in the game too - some of them great geo-strategists. Congress too is there to keep the President in check.
On Mark Zuckerberg: did he only change his policies because of Trump? He was subject to enormous pressure by the Biden Administration for years - Zuckerberg was aware of the strong tendency of cancelling free speech much earlier than last elections. Zuckerberg will not cancel fact-checking, but eliminate official curation by left-wing media. Everyone (including left-wingers) will still be capable to fact-check themselves and add notes to posts they consider not factual - the Twitter model.
On Heather Cox-Richardson I want to be short: She is an excellent historian but she is also extremely woke. She is not a (geo)political thinker, but a historian who sees things through the lens of the Democratic party. Her book "Democracy Awakening" zooms in on Trump's first presidency as if she is describing history - but no one today can possibly make a fine historical assessment of what exactly it is that the Trump administration has or has not achieved.
However, you seem quite aware of the problem with cancelling free speech, as you warn against "interest silos" and living "without any knowledge of what’s happening in our own neighbourhoods". But then you complain about a platform that "willingly and knowingly provides misinformation an equal presence alongside truth". So you correctly identify the problem, but then. somehow implied in the latter quote is a suggestion that we can (easily?) tell "misinformation" from "truth". But, as I tried to illustrate, "truth" is a hard-won jewel, especially in political issues. If we can only point to a lack of morals in a leader, and suggest this makes him "a threat to the world" - is that the discovery of truth? Is the observation that Zuckerberg did wrong by trying to get back to respecting free speech, really enmity against "truth"?
You are not alone, Gretta. My own thoughts here >> https://words-gather-here.blogspot.com/2025/01/information-chaos.html <<. I continue to spell neighbour with a 'u' even though X blocks it as hate speech. I hope our grandchildren will find this all hilarious from their perspective in a saner world.
Well, you left at a challenging time when most, because of isolation, were leaning it. Brave! I didn't realize X considers neighbour hate speech. That's rich! I left them a couple of years ago. My hope for our generation's grandchildren and their grandchildren simply forgive us as they find their way forward in a world beyond anything we have ever known or had to cope with, horrid though our history has been. That's all I could hope for.
My comment about X and hate speech was too glib. It's always more complicated. I was referring to the News about the Penthouse marquee in Vancouver. The link is buried in my previous blog post, https://words-gather-here.blogspot.com/2025/01/to-lift-heart.html.
You are a lot stronger than I am… I have travelled the world and have met so many people with whom I kept connected to though FB. I would like to cut FB/twitter/linkedin from my life but can’t stand the idea of loosing those connections. I also believe that we must question everything… apply critical thought because it is becoming impossible to find a place where truth and cognitive biases don’t play a role.
Hi gretta, I’m not surprised that you are leaving Facebook. I have also been considering it given the latest announcement about abandoning fact checking. Your comments are moderate and well made.
Thank you! By the way I haven’t tweeted since EM bought it as I decided he was going to use it as his personal fiefdom.
What I also want to consider is whether I will recommend that WHU also leaves FB.
I’m also on Bluesky but haven’t explored it fully yet so I will see you there once I have worked out how to navigate it.
Zuckerberg will not remove fact-checking. He wants to remove official legalization of left-wing free speech cancelling. Yet everyone (including the left) will be capable of fact-checking for themselves and add critical notes to articles and messages they consider not factual (conform the Twitter model).
Dear Gretta,
Calling Trump "the man who is currently the greatest threat to current and future life on the planet", and connecting this straightforward, in black and white language, with "truth", is a very dubious statement. I am no fan of Trump, and I know he is seen as a danger on the ecological front for instance, but there are other world dangers where very many people have seen Trump as the solution for obvious reasons. Think of the geopolitical front, where China joined Russia, Iran and North Korea with the explicit goal of advancing autocracy against the human rights based international order. And we know for sure that those regimes considered Biden a weak leader (which may have encouraged Putin starting his war in Ukraine), while Trump is someone they rather fear and respect - while Trump did not even wage any wars. Trump also managed the Abraham accords, a unique chance for Muslims to start reversing the old ways of explicit Arab hatred against all things Jewish - but he hardly got any credits for it. So picturing Trump as particularly dangerous to the world is, to my understanding, not so clearly a "truth".
There are other considerations to make. First of all, half of the American people wanted Trump re-elected, and it is hard to believe they are all just idiots who do not care about truth, or about the "current and future life on the planet". Also, the reasoning that the personal issues of a powerful man would make it impossible for him to still make correct political observations, is not rational, it is a 'puritan' projection. All the more because there's lots of advisers in the game too - some of them great geo-strategists. Congress too is there to keep the President in check.
On Mark Zuckerberg: did he only change his policies because of Trump? He was subject to enormous pressure by the Biden Administration for years - Zuckerberg was aware of the strong tendency of cancelling free speech much earlier than last elections. Zuckerberg will not cancel fact-checking, but eliminate official curation by left-wing media. Everyone (including left-wingers) will still be capable to fact-check themselves and add notes to posts they consider not factual - the Twitter model.
On Heather Cox-Richardson I want to be short: She is an excellent historian but she is also extremely woke. She is not a (geo)political thinker, but a historian who sees things through the lens of the Democratic party. Her book "Democracy Awakening" zooms in on Trump's first presidency as if she is describing history - but no one today can possibly make a fine historical assessment of what exactly it is that the Trump administration has or has not achieved.
However, you seem quite aware of the problem with cancelling free speech, as you warn against "interest silos" and living "without any knowledge of what’s happening in our own neighbourhoods". But then you complain about a platform that "willingly and knowingly provides misinformation an equal presence alongside truth". So you correctly identify the problem, but then. somehow implied in the latter quote is a suggestion that we can (easily?) tell "misinformation" from "truth". But, as I tried to illustrate, "truth" is a hard-won jewel, especially in political issues. If we can only point to a lack of morals in a leader, and suggest this makes him "a threat to the world" - is that the discovery of truth? Is the observation that Zuckerberg did wrong by trying to get back to respecting free speech, really enmity against "truth"?
With kind regards and all due respect.
You are not alone, Gretta. My own thoughts here >> https://words-gather-here.blogspot.com/2025/01/information-chaos.html <<. I continue to spell neighbour with a 'u' even though X blocks it as hate speech. I hope our grandchildren will find this all hilarious from their perspective in a saner world.
Well, you left at a challenging time when most, because of isolation, were leaning it. Brave! I didn't realize X considers neighbour hate speech. That's rich! I left them a couple of years ago. My hope for our generation's grandchildren and their grandchildren simply forgive us as they find their way forward in a world beyond anything we have ever known or had to cope with, horrid though our history has been. That's all I could hope for.
My comment about X and hate speech was too glib. It's always more complicated. I was referring to the News about the Penthouse marquee in Vancouver. The link is buried in my previous blog post, https://words-gather-here.blogspot.com/2025/01/to-lift-heart.html.
EM and Z have truly turned the world upside down. We don't feel safe any more.
Z’s response to the PTSD suffered by content moderators? I think it’s likely he doesn’t care about the truth, only the money. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/12/854998616/in-settlement-facebook-to-pay-52-million-to-content-moderators-with-ptsd
You are a lot stronger than I am… I have travelled the world and have met so many people with whom I kept connected to though FB. I would like to cut FB/twitter/linkedin from my life but can’t stand the idea of loosing those connections. I also believe that we must question everything… apply critical thought because it is becoming impossible to find a place where truth and cognitive biases don’t play a role.
Hi gretta, I’m not surprised that you are leaving Facebook. I have also been considering it given the latest announcement about abandoning fact checking. Your comments are moderate and well made.
Thank you! By the way I haven’t tweeted since EM bought it as I decided he was going to use it as his personal fiefdom.
What I also want to consider is whether I will recommend that WHU also leaves FB.
I’m also on Bluesky but haven’t explored it fully yet so I will see you there once I have worked out how to navigate it.
Sending warm greetings
John
Zuckerberg will not remove fact-checking. He wants to remove official legalization of left-wing free speech cancelling. Yet everyone (including the left) will be capable of fact-checking for themselves and add critical notes to articles and messages they consider not factual (conform the Twitter model).