Online / Offline
Audio Recording by George Hahn
I celebrated my 50th birthday last weekend (just go with it). It’s a milestone and an opportunity to reflect, which I do … too much. In the past 50 years, there may have been more technological innovation and disruption than in the previous 500. The year my parents divorced, I spent the summer with my dad in Chicago. On weekends, we’d journey to his downtown office, where I could use the WATS line (ask a Boomer) to call my mom. Long distance calls were $4/minute. Well worth the hour long train ride.
If the cycle time of innovation keeps contracting, we may register even greater changes in the next 15 years. The net-net of a jump to lightspeed in innovation is a mix of unprecedented prosperity and danger, as godlike technology will collide with paleolithic instincts and medieval institutions.
Dinosaurs
Sixty-six million years ago, an asteroid the size of Everest slammed into Earth. The impact unleashed an apocalyptic chain of events that changed the global ecosystem, extinguishing dinosaurs and setting the stage for Homo habilis (i.e., us). When a natural ecosystem changes, predators and prey adapt, or they die.
Thirty years ago, the internet slammed into our information ecosystem. The internet is bigger and more devastating than the Chicxulub impactor (note: Awesome name for a boy band). Chicxulub didn’t kill off the dinosaurs immediately; it took about 30,000 years before the last Triceratops drew her final breath. Newspaper revenue peaked in 2005 and has since declined 80%; traditional TV’s revenue has been halved since streaming began. To call legacy media “dinosaurs” is not fair to dinosaurs. The new apex predators (tech platforms) have evolved from amoebas to Tyrannosaurus rexes since the debut season of Law & Order. How we ingest and digest the information that shapes our views and actions is changing, as are we.
Asshole
I’m a better person offline: friendlier, more likely to find common ground. Online, I am defensive and angry, as I’m constantly having to battle bots, anonymous trolls, and people arguing in bad faith. And most people are a lesser version of themselves online.
Why the Jekyll and Hyde act? The frictionless experiences created by the digital revolution make it easy to post harmful content without thinking first. Social media companies have experimented with moderation tools that warn users before they post something damaging, but the idea hasn’t caught on. We dislike the coarseness of online culture, but we hate friction. And, just as there are cues to be civil offline (e.g., traffic signs, handicap parking), the corporate titans of today have discovered that while sex sells, rage addicts. Their algorithms elevate content that’s incendiary and novel (i.e., bullshit). If only there was a way to exonerate them from the externalities of the emissions their users are belching into society, which are (in my view) more damaging than carbon? But wait, there is … Section 230.
Take Off That Mask
Halloween is my favorite holiday. Something about getting to wear a wig — and a green light for women to dress like sluts works for me. I tend to get drunk and behave more outrageously than society would accept, say, during midday on a Wednesday in February. The guys who dumped British tea in Boston harbor dressed up like Native Americans as a mis-direct to dodge accountability. The men behind the Declaration of Independence signed their names as they had the courage of their convictions.
Anonymity’s value has been exaggerated for the benefit of the tech incumbents, who don’t want to be held responsible for the damage their firms’ actions cause. We’re more likely to post inflammatory/defamatory content when we know there are no consequences. As a famous 1993 cartoon in the New Yorker put it, “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” Today the caption would read, “On the internet, nobody knows you’re the asshole.”
Telegram
Imagine I own a hotel. The Scott boasts a California king in every room, James Perse pajamas, a decent pool scene, a dog park, and a taco truck that never closes. It’s also a nexus for terrorism, child exploitation, and illegal arms sales. In the analog, extremely offline world, The Scott would be shut down and Scott Galloway imprisoned. But our idolatry of the dollar and innovators has shapeshifted into an Iron Dome intercepting all incoming accountability hurling toward “emerging platforms.” If it’s digital, then it’s speech and immune. The least greatest generation (tech bros) have convinced the media and lawmakers that their crimes are … speech. And not subject to the same standards as similar activity in the offline world.
Telegram is a communications platform with public channels, private chats that can be encrypted, and self-deleting messages. One billion people use it. The Russian military uses it on the battlefield in Ukraine. Activists against the governments in authoritarian countries use it. At one point, Telegram was the app of choice for ISIS. Recently, it’s become the go-to platform for domestic terrorists. It’s also a must-have for criminal networks. Telegram, which advertises itself as a free speech platform that doesn’t moderate content, was instrumental for the right-wing groups that organized race riots in the U.K. this summer.
Consequences?
Last month, French authorities arrested Telegram CEO Pavel Durov. The charges included allegations that the platform is used to distribute child sexual abuse material and facilitate drug trafficking, and that it refused to share information with investigators as required by law. These are serious allegations, and if proven, Telegram and its CEO will be punished. That shouldn’t be controversial. But as soon as news of Durov’s arrest broke, he was crowned a free speech martyr by Silicon Valley’s usual suspects. This isn’t about speech, but our decision to elevate billionaires, and the platforms that made them billionaires, to deities.
Free Speech
Frequently, the internet’s most intractable problems hit a free speech dead end. Last week, 42 state attorneys general called on Congress to mandate warning labels for social media, citing a surgeon general report detailing the link between social media and anxiety and depression in teens. Reporters, activists, and parents, including me, have highlighted this issue for years. But it’s unlikely we’ll see a warning label, as social media companies will deploy lobbyists, lawyers, and publicists to innovation-wash (i-wash) their criminality. Tying it to economic growth, free speech, youth, and a general sense that to constrain them would be wrong — or worse, European.
When thousands of Americans were dying every day during the pandemic, public health officials asked social media platforms to remove misinformation about Covid-19. This was immediately framed as a conspiracy to control people. Balancing public health and civil liberties is never easy. In some cases, public health officials overreached; in others, social media platforms voluntarily complied and likely saved lives. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in the government’s favor, though the decision was made on procedural grounds. But what should’ve been a free society’s shining moment devolved into a melée of conspiracy theories, publicity stunts, and disingenuous accusations of censorship.
Earlier this year, sexually explicit AI-generated images of Taylor Swift went viral. One image posted on X was shared 24,000 times and received 45 million views. Deep fakes make the problem of revenge porn worse — but revenge porn achieved scale long before Taylor Swift became a victim. In the U.S., 49 states have laws against such behavior. But at the federal level — where it counts — efforts to criminalize revenge porn, or at least empower victims to seek civil remedies, have consistently stalled because of First Amendment concerns. What would happen if pornographic AI-generated images of Taylor Swift were shown on televisions, in movie theaters, or in any other lame medium run by boomers?
Responsibility
Censorship is a problem in a free society, but it’s nowhere near our biggest problem, and it’s become a mis-direct from the greater perils we face. We are raising the most obese, addicted, anxious generation in our nation’s history. But censorship … that’s the real threat? Give me a fucking break. Cries of censorship are a tell for someone who won’t shut up and is EVERYwhere. Our society has adopted a generally accepted myth that being offended or crying “censorship” means you are right. No, it just means you are offended and have become allergic to people pushing back on your bullshit.
A much bigger threat is the belief that the internet, and its zealots, is all freedom, zero responsibility.
Perhaps that sentiment is an echo of John Perry Barlow’s 1996 essay A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Barlow, a techno-libertarian who co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote, “Governments of the industrial world, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.” Barlow’s essay came in response to the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or what’s known today as Section 230.
Immunizing online platforms from third-party speech excused media platforms from the scrutiny, accountability, and citizenship we demand from other media companies.
But it’s a false premise to suggest freedom is at odds with responsibility. It’s not. The freedoms we enjoy are a function of the responsibility embraced by people who see themselves as part of something bigger. When Durov was arrested there was a cacophony of catastrophizing from the tech set, who don’t want to give up their laminated stay-out-of-jail cards. “This will send a chill throughout the tech world,” lamented billionaire tech figures. Yes, winter is coming. And it’s a good thing.
Life is so rich,
P.S. Was this newsletter forwarded to you? You can subscribe here.
P.P.S. Section is hosting a free, full-day, virtual conference on getting and proving AI ROI. Speakers include AI experts, leaders, ethicists — and me. You can register now.
I’ll stick with the antidote to a pandemic of lies, propaganda etc is to have more wide open platforms. I much prefer it to a propagandists posing as journalists and editors. Get your 360 degrees of information and make the call yourself. I don’t need a nanny to protect me from other people’s words or beliefs. It’s a very SIMPY existence. No thanks.
Typical liberal pro censorship tripe. Pushing back on bullshit is one thing. Actually muffling Constitutionally protected speech (which many big tech firms and the lib media have admitted doing in recent months), is another. They’re not the same and trying to say they are is disingenuous and uninformed. Folks push back when real feee speech rights are impinged and the left is all about sweeping all kinds of protected speech into the “misinformation” category. But again, liberal values must be protected at all costs. Truth be damned.
Disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theorist, anti science, anti vaxxer – all propaganda terms taken out of the
World War ll playbook for totalitarianism. Let us never forget all the many voices in the scientific community that were censored for the sake of big p-harm-a making billions via the mass selling of experimental vaccines. And to think that you thought yourself so smart when you wrote/published this nonsense.
I see Huffington Post calls Tim Walz “radically nice.” That’s an interesting euphemism for “asshole.”
I guess couch jokes are “words of kindness”?
I guess we’ll see after the VP debate. Mr. Couch Joke Turd Walz doesn’t seem to have anything else in his brain.
If we’re really lucky, we might find out that those weren’t couch jokes, those were stories about Walz’s own most memorable experiences with sex switched over to Vance.
Great article Scott. As a Brazilian I have affected very recently of censorship and (lack of) freedom os speech in light of the public dispute between a brazilian justice and Elon Musk. I must say that the Justices here in Brazil and the recent relegation of the rule of law in our country are probably the biggest “cancer cell ” we have today in our country (that has hundreds of metastasis). Cancelling the services of X in Brazil because a small number of accounts should (according to the Justice) have been shut down by X…..and worse….having cancelled the operations of Starlink in Brazil for the simple reason that both X and Starlink have the same ownership structure (!!!) was very scary to see and live. Starlink is a fundamental piece of technology for the agro-business in Brazil….and cancellation of their services will detonate a catastrophic consequence to the agro-business……One should question why a Justice has some much concentrated power in his hands…..dribble legislation and law as per his interests and to foster personal vendetas. This type of censorship one I am fully against!
Anonimity and accountability. Off line journalists print their name in what they write and they are accountable of what they say. The minima apps should try to identify on line “journalists” name and ID. If its not possible then dont allow publication. Abrazo
Scott, it’s not a big deal, but I hope you appreciate that your status allows you to admit to appreciating women who “dress like sluts” on Halloween, while I’d avoid saying something like that with my lesser social status.
When the question in society becomes more about who gets to appreciate women who “dress like sluts” on Halloween, society has a problem.
That is the problem we face this Halloween. Scary, isn’t it?
Thank you, Scott.
Your words have shown me that I’m right to dislike Tim Walz and Alex Ocasio-Cortez for their verbal abuse of incels — that is, every man who hasn’t had sex in at least six months (and every woman in the same situation, too, although there are idiots who don’t believe that women can be incel).
It’s rude that an asshole psychologist can dub you an incel, and you find out, after it leaks widely, that you’re now defined by that psychological term, and the bullies’ bullshit interpretation of it.
It’s beyond rude when a political party wants to stir up hatred of men who are alone.
Democrats need to apologize for Tim Walz and Alex Ocasio-Cortez and their irrational hatred of incels.
You’ve shown me that my feeling that AOC and Walz are assholes is an honest expression of feeling no one can object to.
You’ve shown me that when I stop watching movies or TV shows because the actors are out there expressing their dislike of me because I don’t get laid enough for their sex-obsessed sensibilities, that’s okay.
Those assholes aren’t the only contributing factor to that dropping out of society by young men that you’ve spoken against, but they aren’t a positive factor.
When these assholes pollute the internet with their hatred of men who aren’t having enough sex, they make Democrats sound like The Dr. Strangelove Party.
The other significant problem we face is that we can’t discuss anything without politicising it, as you’ve attempted to do here! It has to be left or right. Well that’s also bullshit! An opinion can (and usually is) just an opinion.
When the opinion comes from both Walz and Ocasio-Cortez during campaign season during their official conversations, I would take it as their attempt to make it a political issue.
When they’re telling me that they don’t like me because they’ve had more sex than I have in that context, Walz and Ocasio-Cortez are weird and creepy.
It also appears that they’re trying to legitimize the next weirdo online who wants to hate on me and other men who are alone because they claim to have had more sex.
I heartily agree that the opinion that weird assholes Walz and Ocasio-Cortez share is bullshit, but I disagree that it’s bullshit to criticize their bullshit opinion!
Ocasio-Cortez has been making rude remarks about “incels” — who are simply anyone who hasn’t had sex for at least six months — for a while now.
Walz did his weirdo bit when trying to imply that J.D. Vance — who has kids — has somehow never had sex.
They were apparently trying to appeal to the sort of commenter online who goes after men who haven’t had sex. That sort of commenter usually self-identifies as a Democrat woman who can’t understand why an incel might be skeptical about Democrats after seeing her trash talk, and lots of other stuff like it, online.
When I see Hollywood types rail against men who haven’t had sex often enough to please them when they see their low box office, I make a note to skip their next film, too.
If incel isn’t a political issue, why did Walz and Ocasio-Cortez — who I see identifying as politicians, not creepy sex-obsessed weirdos who should remind you of Dr. Strangelove — even shit it out?
When two prominent Democrats are talking like they want assholes who vote for them to bully me and others like me, it’s a political issue.
If I don’t want to be bullied by assholes, I don’t like a party that has finally come out and endorsed it officially.
If being an asshole toward incels is not Kamala Harris’ stand, I expect her to make a heartfelt apology for her sex-obssessed weirdo running mate and her sex-obsessed weirdo campaign surrogate.
Censorship of ‘assholes’ and ‘bullshit’ as you frame it, is not the problem. Censorship of one’s truth is a problem. If someone finds that children are being castrated in the thousands in a society by the government, and you censor them, you are causing continuing harm.
The problem is, you can’t wave a wand and allow the truth through without the bullshit. I err on the side of not allowing a bureaucracy to censor us. Inevitably they will censor based on their self-interest rather than ‘truth’.
Great post, Scott. I just wanted to note that John Perry Barlow was one of the two primary lyricists for the Grateful Dead, along with Robert Hunter. He was a hippie (and a genuine cowboy) more than a tech bro and wrote that treatise in the heady days when the internet had so much promise. Strangely, we looked upon the world wide web as a benign force for good – sharing all humanities knowledge – without considering the yin to that yang or vice versa. Now we have enough data regarding the damage being done by social media to say enough of the free-for-all and begin to treat the digital commons like we treat the traditional institutions in our society with rules, laws and guardrails.
Free speech is for the poor and powerless to speak up against the powerful (people or companies or government) that abuse their power. It’s not to spread lies, hate or conspiracy theories or religion. But if advertiser would just stop advertising, the problem would go away.
I am a retired 80 years ex c- level tech executive , who loves your writings.
This one in particular touched me as I have witnessed a few youngsters addicted by the social media and depressed .Do you think a next president Gop or Dem can take this issue up ? Best
Anyone who comments with abusive or vulgar words proves his point.
We all have to stop this insane rage against the monsters we create- Offline, then by throwing grenades online.
He’s right: Section 230 would help ALL of us.
The answer is incredibly simple. Take away anonymity and people behave better. No need for the government to censor- which taken to its logical conclusion is much worse than what we have. And private sites have the liberty to censor as they wish. Poor decisions will lead to poor outcomes while good ones will lead to business success. Let the market sort this out. The collective wisdom is always smarter than the brightest individuals.
Accountability is the job of private enterprise when it endangers their business and the job of the government when someone breaks the law.
“Just because you are offended does not make it offensive” Ricky Gervais
My favoirte holiday is GroundHog’s Day. Nothing to buy . Nothing to do. POrn need to be removed– censored. Or just say we pause it for five years. Everyone has seen anal sex and threesomes. Even five year olds. Nothing more to see. Get rid of it.
24 hour crispy fish tacos truck 🤤
“…Our society has adopted a generally accepted myth that being offended or crying “censorship” means you are right. No, it just means you are offended and have become allergic to people pushing back on your bullshit.”
Man, you are a deity!
there are 7 deadly sins. social media is built on the most efficient, frictionless main-lining of 4 of them – envy, lust, gluttony and rage. most importantly rage. it’s not hard people. just disconnect.
I think anonymity on social media platforms should be prohibited. Accounts should be registered with the user’s name and even face. Their comments, threats, vitriol, bias, etc. will be attributed to them with no hiding behind a shield of fake accounts and names. I would hope that would make people think twice before slinging more excrement in the cesspool of social media.
I don’t know your last name or face, Chris.
You’re more comfortable sharing your opinion that way, and I respect that, given some of the ridiculous behavior I’ve seen online.
“On the internet people can see how much of an asshole you can be.”
If you fail to realize the slippery slope of censorship and damage to our society…….. then maybe you should shut this channel down. Because your support (and others) of that cause is truly the most harmful issue facing our world.
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
–Harry S. Truman
If we are speaking about principles and founding laws we have to ask ourselves you have to be the a****** the bigger a****** to point things out in a fatherly manner blatantly for people to understand that those laws that you preach in this life ,that you violate, are the very same laws and principles that you use to violate someone’s life of course someone has to be the a****** God’s only begotten son should be an a****** according to a prophecy from God that we are supposed to be abiding by in this life you know our all father who art in heaven stay safe and state Israeli sucker Free. Free Palestine
It’s really strange how you fail to mention how a majority of that covid misinformation that was censored by social media ended up being the truth. So the censorship ended up costing people their lives not saving anyone.
Eat more horse deworming paste, trumpie
You mean that horse dewormer that was used for decades on billions of people? That also has veterinary applications? Try harder soy boy
While checking Apple Podcasts with a U.S. account on September 20th, I noticed that your rankings seem off. In the News category, “Pivot” is ranked 28th and “On with Kara” is 36th. If I’m not mistaken, “Pivot” used to be better positioned. Perhaps consistently justifying every questionable decision by the Democrats is causing you to lose audience. Personally, I’ve stopped listening. I used to enjoy the show, but since it has become fully biased toward one side, and I often find the assessments lazy and uninformed, I no longer think it’s worth my time.
You’re right, it’s not worth your time, my disingenuous orange koolaid drinking friend.
This is a typical leftist answer. As I said instead of analyzing the issues and have a talk you guys jump straight into offending people.
Ummm, did you read Scott’s piece? It’s 100% analysis. What analysis have you offered, my friend?
I thought of traffic and other cameras in regards to anonymity. There’s always been resistance to them as authority overreach, which is nonsense. Running red lights and speeding is the most dangerous behavior we face on a daily basis.
Happy birthday Scott! Maybe we get the Internet that we deserve? The problem is that the human species is not well adapted to the environment that we have created: for example, the ability of the human brain to resist the various addictions of 21st century life, from Facebook to fentanyl and all the other “f”s in between. But Homo habilis is superior to Triceratops: unlike the dinosaurs we are the masters of our own extinction.
An interesting rant as usual. I beg to differ on the importance and proportionality of censorship.
In the 2020 election the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story by our government in the person of the FBI and social media, coupled with the farcical “classic Russian disinformation” letter signed by 51 Intel potentates may have had a decisive impact on the outcome.
Censorship, in this instance coupled with gross disinformation, played trump.
Bless your heart, trumpie.
LOL thank you for showing that all the left has is smears. No tolerance or substantive debate. You and Scott support censorship, which is what all tyrants want.
Would you be equally outraged if we were talking about Don Jr’s laptop? I think not….