The whole notion of "fact checkers" who will view, parse, and then deliver the 'correct' reality to us is positively Orwellian.
It should be rejected on it's face, for being so unbelievably and deeply insulting to the intellect of all of all of us as apparent citizens in need of being told 'what is truth'. This is the 'mediated' reality of Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'. [Which was a novel about a potential dystopia, not a handbook for how to run modern society].
"Expert" mediated reality? ...yeah, that's gonna be a no from me, thanks. ✋🏼
I hear you. I wrote my thesis on interactions in online spaces and I appreciate the need for moderation of some sort. I also acknowledge that unmoderated spaces can devolve into steaming cesspits of the worst of humanity. At the same time, I completely agree that the nature and degree of moderation and censorship as we are currently seeing on the major socials platforms is truly Orwellian, and is not good.
Pablo Escobar was a rookie when compared to Pfizer.
Great article as usual Rebekah 👏
The whole notion of "fact checkers" who will view, parse, and then deliver the 'correct' reality to us is positively Orwellian.
It should be rejected on it's face, for being so unbelievably and deeply insulting to the intellect of all of all of us as apparent citizens in need of being told 'what is truth'. This is the 'mediated' reality of Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'. [Which was a novel about a potential dystopia, not a handbook for how to run modern society].
"Expert" mediated reality? ...yeah, that's gonna be a no from me, thanks. ✋🏼
I hear you. I wrote my thesis on interactions in online spaces and I appreciate the need for moderation of some sort. I also acknowledge that unmoderated spaces can devolve into steaming cesspits of the worst of humanity. At the same time, I completely agree that the nature and degree of moderation and censorship as we are currently seeing on the major socials platforms is truly Orwellian, and is not good.