I have loved Haidt since I read the Righteous Mind. However, I am not completely onboard with his diagnosis of social media being the root cause. Liberal bias in the media began to creep before social media was really here. Most of the national newspapers except the WSJ were becoming unreadable to anyone except those with left-leaning political views. Then the regional and local papers caught the sickness. It started subtle - choice of what is reported and what is not and where it is placed in the news section... and "but" reporting when on something positive from a conservative view (as in, yeah it is positive, but....). It was like the editors had faded away.
And when you look at the start of social media, the founders all communicated their vision as being open platforms for all.
What happened?
I say critical theory injected into the education system by the 3rd wave feminists who adopted a postmodernist Marxist agenda. As graduates launched into media, tech and politics... the woke sickness just advanced.
I agree with alot of what Haidt has to say about the causes but he's dead wrong both about the legal status of 230 and the notion that it can be understood as a conditional privlege without doing severe damage to free speech.
To illustrate the point consider welfare. There is no question whatsoever it's a privlege not a right yet free speech as a moral ideal (and I believe the current interpretation of the 1st) doesn't allow the government to condition that privlege on, say, not being a member of the communist party. In general the government can't condition benefits on what kind of speech one engages in (it's more complicated than that, eg, if the speech is closely related to the purposes of the benefit, but to a first approximation.
The same applies to section 230. Moreover, it's not at all obvious that something like the 230 protections themselves aren't required. Section 230 was passed bc there was a case that decided internet forums were publishers of their comments if they engaged in moderation rather than (as booksellers were) mere distributors. That was a dumb deciscion by a judge who didn't understand the internet and it's not at all clear it's how the supreme court would decide the case.
Besides, as a policy matter it's a mistake to open that Pandora's box.
I share a lot of Haidt's concerns, but I believe he is wrong about anonymity online. Given the social and professional repercussions for questioning woke orthodoxy, many of us need to be anonymous to participate in online conversation.
I have loved Haidt since I read the Righteous Mind. However, I am not completely onboard with his diagnosis of social media being the root cause. Liberal bias in the media began to creep before social media was really here. Most of the national newspapers except the WSJ were becoming unreadable to anyone except those with left-leaning political views. Then the regional and local papers caught the sickness. It started subtle - choice of what is reported and what is not and where it is placed in the news section... and "but" reporting when on something positive from a conservative view (as in, yeah it is positive, but....). It was like the editors had faded away.
And when you look at the start of social media, the founders all communicated their vision as being open platforms for all.
What happened?
I say critical theory injected into the education system by the 3rd wave feminists who adopted a postmodernist Marxist agenda. As graduates launched into media, tech and politics... the woke sickness just advanced.
I agree with alot of what Haidt has to say about the causes but he's dead wrong both about the legal status of 230 and the notion that it can be understood as a conditional privlege without doing severe damage to free speech.
To illustrate the point consider welfare. There is no question whatsoever it's a privlege not a right yet free speech as a moral ideal (and I believe the current interpretation of the 1st) doesn't allow the government to condition that privlege on, say, not being a member of the communist party. In general the government can't condition benefits on what kind of speech one engages in (it's more complicated than that, eg, if the speech is closely related to the purposes of the benefit, but to a first approximation.
The same applies to section 230. Moreover, it's not at all obvious that something like the 230 protections themselves aren't required. Section 230 was passed bc there was a case that decided internet forums were publishers of their comments if they engaged in moderation rather than (as booksellers were) mere distributors. That was a dumb deciscion by a judge who didn't understand the internet and it's not at all clear it's how the supreme court would decide the case.
Besides, as a policy matter it's a mistake to open that Pandora's box.
I share a lot of Haidt's concerns, but I believe he is wrong about anonymity online. Given the social and professional repercussions for questioning woke orthodoxy, many of us need to be anonymous to participate in online conversation.