There has been a concerned push to have all content publishing sites institute demonetization and deplatforming of those who some committees or organizations or NGOs are spreading “disinformation” or “harmful content”.
This has even been extended to seeking to control ALL means of monetizing opinions that are ill-favored by the elite including crypto. There are increasing calls to effectively break even encrypted communication including person-to-person encrypted messaging by scanning for “harmful content” and “disinformation” before the communication can even be encrypted. This of course would have devasting effects on all privacy at all levels. The UK Online Safety Bill is an excellent example. It is matched by equally worrisome legislation in Australia, Canada and the US.
There are many remedies already in law for those who are actually causing any real harm that can be proven in a court of law. There are no objective definitions for what constitutes “harmful content” or “disinformation”. Back in the heat of the COVID crisis persons, even with excellent relevant credentials, who merely spoke against the effectiveness and/or rationality of certain CDC and WHO policies were deemed spreaders of “disinformation” or worse. Many of these were not only demonetized and/or deplatformed but had their entire illustrious careers destroyed merely for having opinions that powers that be considered troublesome. Much of what some of them said has since been verified as accurate and parts of it have become the new officially sanctioned narrative.
Obviously there is no freedom of speech when not only private groups but government and international groups push hard on industry and with laws as well to do more to curb “disinformation”. It is a naked attempt to allow powerful elites to control what can be said and heard by the population. Freedom of speech not reach nonsense is silencing of communication. It is stifling of the very freedom of though, and access to one another’s thoughts that fuels innovation and sound decision making. It is an attempt to stamp out diversity of opinion and ideas and even knowledge of possibly relevant facts and points of view. It is deadly to democracy itself.
The “harmful content” notion is a ploy to give more selling power to the would be controllers of free speech and thought. It claims without evidence all sorts of possible “harm” simply from seeing a situation differently and saying what one sees or not going along with a particular narrative of the moment that is being pushed as “right-think”. This is the heart of 1984 style dystopia and must be stopped. It is not at all proper to say actionable “harm” has occurred if someone or a certain number of someones merely feels “triggered” or aggrieved by what one has said. Yet this very daffynition is being pushed when those that would silence “harmful content” bother themselves with pesky things like definitions at all.
There can be no liberal society and no democracy when muzzles are placed upon the people and they are increasingly forbidden to hear anything government and other elites do not wish them to hear. There can be no informed consent when the information available is rigidly censored.