| | |
|
JasonLSecondEssay 3 - 07 Jan 2022 - Main.JasonL
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
The Over-sanctification of Free Thought? | | | "Everything they think, you are" | |
<
< | Warnings that new technologies will replace free will and thought is an old song and there is no reason to think such impacts are limited to the world of tech. Societal structures have sought to challenge the ability for humans to think freely since the state of nature was reorganized into governments. Implicit in the terms of any social contract is the notion that you give up your freedom, and hence, your ability to think freely. | >
> | Still, there is no reason to think such impacts are limited to the world of tech. Societal structures have sought to challenge the ability for humans to think freely since the state of nature was reorganized into governments. Implicit in the terms of any social contract is the notion that you give up your freedom, and hence, your ability to think freely. | | | Big Tech is not the cause, but rather a symptom of a larger reality. It is now the hallmark of American capitalism to alter the way people think about their needs. Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds added addictive ingredients into cigarettes and then deceived the public about its dangers, while a handful of scientists with extensive political backing ran campaigns to refute evidence about tobacco’s dangers. Addressing climate change was a bipartisan consensus until a massive public-relations campaign backed by Exxon and the Koch brothers created enough doubt to split the nation’s conscience half. For the last two decades, drug manufacturers—largely, Purdue—publicly denied the addictive qualities of opioids, lied to doctors about addiction risks, and trained sales representatives to target vulnerable populations, like the elderly, veterans, and first-time users. The recent revelations that Facebook knew about its product’s deleterious impact on the mental health of young adults is not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. | | | On any of those premises I think you could construct a sceptical response. That would be welcome, because—unlike in relation to the straw man created here—from that shared starting point, the dialogue that sustains learning would be possible.
| |
>
> | You point out that there are other ways of conceiving of “freedom of thought.” I believe you argue that free thought is inextricably tied to free expression, which could (and should) then be protected by privacy or anonymity laws. Or freedom of thought could be conceived as rights to be protected from government censorship, as the First Amendment generally does.
But these other premises conflate thoughts with expressions. Expressions are far easier to protect from external intervention by application of law. The First Amendment promises that expressions will be free from prior restraints; in other words, thoughts are privileged to become expressions without government intervention; only after such expression is announced may the government impose its judgment. But thoughts are far more difficult to insulate from outside forces than expressions. And using the law in particular to protect thoughts from foreign influence is a daunting task. For example, laws designed to safeguard children from certain advertising in commercials (e.g., cigarettes) are leaky, since movies and songs and other humans can plant the thought in the children's brain that such advertising laws were designed to prevent (e.g., "cigarettes are cool"). To be clear, I do not claim that free-thinking is not worth protecting, or that laws could not potentially achieve that end.
I apologize if this essay had an otherwise condescending tone. It was not my intention to dismiss other arguments or assume the superiority of mine. I humbly accept any and all debate. | | | |
|
| Revision 3 | r3 - 07 Jan 2022 - 14:26:15 - JasonL |
| Revision 2 | r2 - 04 Jan 2022 - 22:11:16 - EbenMoglen |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |