Censorship: the next world war?

Michael Shellenberger is a fascinating journalist. In his op-ed for UnHerd, Shellenberger writes "The war on free speech is hardly a novel phenomenon, instead mutating over the centuries. What is new, however, is its global aspirations: today, the conflict takes the form of a world war."

Additionally, he writes "You can see its shadow in every Western country, from the US and Canada to Ireland and Australia, as well as in every multinational organisation, from the EU to the UN. Rising levels of hate speech and misinformation, we are told, make it more urgent than ever for governments, corporations and multilateral organisations to adopt stronger measures to protect vulnerable populations online."

It's indisputable that the world's power brokers thirst for more control of the language and, therefore, the world's people. That isn't proof that the world's power brokers will win. It just means that they're trying.

What if a crisis isn't a crisis?

Next, Shellenberger wrote "It is for this reason that Biden’s Department of Homeland Security recently created a "Disinformation Governance Board," the European Commission crafted a new Digital Services Act and Code of Practice on Disinformation, and the UN is proposing a "Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms." All of these initiatives are allegedly the product of good intentions; all of them, however, are rooted in the same fallacy: there is little evidence to suggest that hate speech and misinformation are on the rise. On the contrary, Western countries are more tolerant of racial, religious and sexual minorities than ever before. To take one example, the percentage of Americans who approve of marriages between white and black Americans has risen from 4% in 1958 to 87% in 2013 to 94% in 2021."

This is the right way of attacking the problem:

The Global Free Speech Alliance is what's required to stop censorship. Whether it's called stopping mis- and disinformation, stopping hate speech or something else, the truth is simple. These categories of speech aren't increasing.

The U.N. published this dishonest article on the subject. High atop the U.N. article, it states "With hate spreading lightning fast on social media and 'mega spreaders' using divisive rhetoric to inspire thousands, the United Nations is calling for concerted global efforts to combat hate speech." The obvious first question is simple. Who determines the definition of hate speech,disinformation and misinformation? Do these people have agendas, as I suspect they do? If they have an agenda, why should I trust them? At this point, let free speech roll. I don't need a determiner or a moderator. Just give me the opportunity to succeed or fail on the merits. If I fail, I'll chalk it up to survival of the fittest. If I win, I'll attribute it to me being well-prepared. That's all I ask for.