Thanks for the article.

There is a trend of "Balkanization of Internet" where Internet is becoming less global and more "national" as in cases of Russia and China but also ideas at the European level.

One solution for the future is a more decentralized Internet in combination with liquid and global democracy where humans can meet digitally and co-create solutions

Expand full comment

It is somewhat disappointing for Persuasion to publish an article which blandly concludes: "But if the European regulatory race to the bottom continues unabated in the decades to come, the essential difference may end up as a matter of degree rather than of kind."

Mchangama was the chief legal counsel for the strongly Libertarian think tank CEPOS which is described in a wiki article as:

"Centre for Political Studies, also known as CEPOS, is an independent association which works as a classical liberal/free-market conservative think-tank in Denmark. It is a strongly right-leaning and highly political association."

Conclusion: Macangama adds nothing to the very complicated and world-wide internet free speech debate

Expand full comment

The writer lays out an important issue in capable fashion. You ignore his argument and attack him for his politics. Conclusion: you have nothing useful to say on the issue and just want to troll. Thankfully, Persuasion Community thus far has resisted the petty tribalization and ostracizing tactics you've attempted here.

Expand full comment

Macangama has a strong libertarian point of view,, as shown in his second sentence outlining the vast potential power that liberal states have (red meat to the Libertarians) and then, appropriately, also notes the checks and balances that liberal states have. Have these checks and balances gone away? There are ways to counteract government overreach

1) Authoritarian states don't need to cite German and UK laws as a precedent for their coercive powers. They will do it on their own.

2. The "Dog Whistle" issue. Today's news gives a ready example: (Jesse Watters is a commentator on Fox News, speaking at conservative rally. Quote from: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/21/fauci-fox-525826)

"Speaking on Monday at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest conference, Watters encouraged attendees to rhetorically “ambush” Fauci with dubious questions about the National Institutes of Health allegedly funding “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“Now you go in for the kill shot. The kill shot? With an ambush? Deadly. Because he doesn’t see it coming,” Watters said.

Watters seems to have perfect deniability that he can retreat behind if someone publicly takes him literally on the internet on their Facebook Page and tries to shoot Fauchi. He should just hope that the assassin doesn't get killed in the attempt, with resulting billion-dollar lawsuits. Watters is deliberately trying to demoralize liberal opposition by using words that seem to threaten their personal safely and their family's, but will cut-and-run using an argument that it was just rhetoric, if it generates violence. Could he escape a lawsuit given the above facts?Should Watters' Dog Whistle have been censored by the Conservative meeting in which it was uttered?

This is just one example of the grey areas that need to be discussed. Not easy.

Charles Buell

Expand full comment