Mediaboss Marketing

By Elliot Leavy, former editor of the technology and innovation magazine maize and editor of culture magazine BOZO. He has written for numerous publications around the world focussing on technology, belief systems, and culture.

The webpage archive service Wayback Machines decision to additionally label already-deleted articles as disinformation is internet history revisionism that comes at a time when critical thinking is desperately needed.

Earlier this month, Wayback Machine took heed of MIT Technology Reviews protests that they are breathing life into debunked coronavirus hoaxes, and took to retroactively labelling past web pages and content removed from their original pages with warnings decrying the information presented as false.

The pages in question come from popular platforms such as Medium which, in theory, were launched to allow users to create content without it being editorialised by the powers that be. By redefining content after it has already been removed, Wayback Machine is adding a level of editorialisation atop of another adding insult to injury by obfuscating original messages and overlaying them with a warning of disinformation. Disinformation being defined as misleading information that is spread deliberately to deceive.

Throughout the big tech sphere, this is nothing new: censorship by the new arbiters of truth is now the norm. However, with coronavirus in full swing, the mission creep toward mass-censorship has become more of a lurch. We are no longer allowed to critically think for ourselves. Instead we are offered one of three options: information, misinformation or disinformation, with the latter hidden away from view lest we get any bad ideas. Nuance, in effect, is no longer an option.

The obvious problem here is that conflicting information surrounding the virus is as widespread as the virus itself. When the world is full of unknowns, who is to say what is and is not disinformation, and where honest miscalculation or tentative prediction ends and malicious intent begins? Why is it that some opinions are removed, whilst others some proven to be incorrect are not?

For example, at the end of last month, research collated by the paediatric blog Dont Forget The Bubbles, together with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), found that, globally, there is no evidence of children having passed Covid-19 to adults, and that children have much less severe symptoms and often do not have any at all.

Despite this fact, reports across some media outlets in the UK have parroted teacher unions cries that it is Not safe to reopen schools. Contrary to the evidence then, is this not disinformation? The unions of course have an agenda, so why is this information not labelled as disinformation? Or at the bare minimum, misinformation?

Then there is the tweet by the World Health Organisation published in January that stated that there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus. Two months later, the WHO declared a global pandemic. At the time of writing, there is still no signalling that this was, in fact, deeply incorrect. Why has it not been removed and/or changed? Was this not disinformation?

The list goes on. In February, Forbes quoted a doctor who claimed that wearing masks would in fact increase the chances of transmitting the virus. If one today uses the Wayback Machine internet archiving service on the Forbes article in question, there lies no mark of shame decrying it as a hoax, which begs the question, why not? It is possible to read this as at least misinformation if you ignore intent; so why the difference in standards? Are the results not the same?

The answer, one must assume, has nothing to do with what is or is not true. Instead, it seems that this censorship presumes nefariousness upon some, whilst assuming ignorance in others. It is not only the content that is being judged else the WHO tweet would have been removed or at least labelled but the author. Gone are the days where we did not shoot the messenger, now both him and the message are fair game.

By towing the censorship line like it has, Wayback Machine which has offered a valuable service up until this point is now complicit. The division and disparity in the enforced rules between different voices reveals that behind the mask lies an agenda.

By tarnishing some but not all voices with the disinformation brush, much of the media, academia, and (predominantly) big tech are putting ideological allegiances before anything else. Now, as ever, is not the time for that. Once we know more, we can evaluate what is wrong and what is right. However, if we continue to censor the past, attaching intent to some but not to others, we will be unable to evaluate anything at all.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Read this article:
What critical thinking? Wayback Machine is now complicit in Big Tech censorship - RT

Screenwriter Zhou Xiaoxuan speaks during an interview with the Associated Press at her home in Beijing, China, on January 16, 2019, detailing her involvement in China's #MeToo movement.

Two years since the #MeToo movementtook offin China, Chinese feminists are battling headwinds in a political environment where the ruling Communist Partys control over the Internet, media and independent activism is tighter than it has been in 30 years.

Chinas party-state has zero tolerance for collective actions, so the countrys #MeToo movement has never been able to manifest in mass street protests. But individual victims have taken their cases to court, demonstrating extraordinary determination and resilience.

Facing intense slut-shaming on Chinese social media platforms and censorship of discussions of her case, University of Minnesota student Liu Jingyao who is suing, in a Minnesota civil court, Chinese billionaire Liu Qiangdong for an alleged rape vowed tonever settleor sign a nondisclosure agreement (prosecutorsdeclined to charge him in the case, and he maintains that the sex was consensual). Similarly, screenwriter Zhou Xiaoxuan who is suing, in a Beijing court, famed state media anchor Zhu Jun for alleged sexual harassment and assault, which hedeniessaid, Even giving me 100 million [yuan], I wouldnt settle.

Under pressure, the Chinese government has made limited improvements. In December 2018, the Supreme Courtadded sexual harassmentto the list of causes of action, making it easier for #MeToo victims to seek redress. Yet China still lacks robust laws against sexual harassment.

Silenced in their home country, Chinese feminists have increasingly found footingoverseas. Utilizing the relatively free and safe space in Western countries, #MeToo activistshold protests, discussions and trainings, and provide support to their counterparts inside China.

In late 2019, authorities detained Huang Xueqin, a journalist and leading figure in Chinas #MeToo movement, for three months for unknown reasons.Upon release, Huang reportedly wrote: This is Xueqin, and Im back. One second of darkness doesnt make people blind.

Amid the vast darkness, nevertheless, Chinese feminists persisted.

Link:
#MeToo in the land of censorship - Human Rights Watch

Youve probably never heard of Robert B. Strassler. Thats OK, youre not alone.

Early in his career, Strassler worked in oil fields, but he always had an interest inthe classics(the formal designation for the studies of ancient Greek and Roman civilizations). Eventually, Strasslers hobby became an obsession. He went so far as to author his own translation of Thucydides, the Athenian historian of the Peloponnesian War.

The problem was nobody wanted to read Strasslers book. This was in the 1990s. It was more difficult to publish to the web and there was no social media. Strassler approached every Ivy League institution he could find. Nobody was interested in reading a manuscript about Thucydides penned by an oilman with no formal credentials. That was the situation until Strassler contacted Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist professor in Fresno, California. Hanson agreed to look at the manuscript and was astounded by Strasslers work: a brilliant, highly readable translation of Thucydides including maps, diagrams, and charts. Hanson helped the disconnected oilman get in touch with a literary agent. Strasslers landmark edition became the standard translation of Thucydides. Still read today, The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War is as successful as any book on the classics can bein the age of Twitter.

Those of us who take the idea of democratic publishing seriously rejoice at how the field has opened to include anyone who has something to say and is willing to write it down. Thats why we should be more alarmed when we see social media companies crowd the spaces once occupied by blogs and do-it-yourself content creators. We see a decline in diverse opinions as the web quickly becomes less free and more autocratic.

How many Robert B. Strasslers are being stifled today by biased algorithms and arbitrary community guidelines?

In March, as COVID-19 exploded into a worldwide panic, the web gatekeepers weve come to rely on quickly massed around a singular interpretation of events andstifled dissenting voiceseven mild ones.

YouTube, the second largest search engine in the world, demonetized all videos that mentioned COVID-19, Coronavirus, or any term related to the pandemic, and herded viewers away from content creators and toward the Center for Disease Control (CDC) the sameCDC that first advisedagainstwearing masks. Even medical practitioners who deviated slightly from the prevailing visionwere removed from the platformafter gaining millions of views.

Experienced journalists who questioned official decrees (surely, the role journalists are expected to perform) were targeted with hit pieces and character assassination by their own peers.

As author/professor Cal Newport noted in anop-ed forWired, much of the dissenting viewpoints and on-the-ground data have become part of the mainstream conversation even after being suppressed by a small group of decision-makers:

We dont necessarily want to trust engineers at one company to make the decisions about what topics the public should and should not be able to read about.

How many times have you clicked on a link in a tweet and received a message as shown in the following screenshot?

Adults should be trusted to determine what kind of content is harmful (if such a thing exists) without the assistance of Twitter employees and their partners. And, are these warnings actually meant to protect people or simply to shield Twitter from corporate liability? I think we can guess what the answer is.

Its not only those without official-sounding credentials who are being barred from sharing content. Creators who clearly have experience in their fields of study are also facing arbitrary censorship.

The Great Courses Plus, a streaming service that produces college-level video courses taught by actual professors, was threatened with a ban from Google if they did not remove COVID-19-related content from their app. In an email to subscribers, the team wrote:

Google informed us they would ban The Great Courses apps if we continued to make [Covid-19] in-app content available. We are working with Google to ensure that they understand our content is factual, expert-led, and thoroughly vetted, so that we can remedy this misunderstanding as soon as possible.

The videos in question included content from Dr. Roy Benaroch, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the Emory University School of Medicine; Dr. David Kung, Professor of Mathematics at St. Marys College of Maryland; and Dr. Kevin Ahern, Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics at Oregon State University. How or why these scholars were found unworthy of Googles imprimatur is a mystery. As the public does not presume to give Google programming advice, perhaps Google could return the favor by not pretending to be experts on epidemiology, immunology, and virology.

The only way to see these offending videos is on the Great Courses website, where Googles authority is not absolute. It happens to be a WordPress-powered site. For intellectuals and laymen who value free expression, having your own website is becoming the only way to make sure you can keep it.

The problem of pitting credentials against experience in a zero-sum conflict is fixable, and WordPress is a big part of the solution.

WordPress allows capable scientists, economists, and medical professionals in other fields to write at length about their ideas without fear of being blocked by arbitrary restrictions. Also, the five-minute install (which does take a little more than five minutes for many people) imposes enough of a barrier to entry to discourage cranks.

We like to think of the internet as a true egalitarian system, where every voice is given equal consideration, but deep down we know thats not exactly how it works. Network effects tend to form hubs of concentrated influence around a handful of websites. This isnt always a bad thing. A recipe blog with poor taste and no pictures deserves fewer readers than a blog with great-tasting recipes and high-resolution images.

There is still room enough in the network for certain nodes to grow in size and influence based on the quality of their content. A node with enough backlinks, good organic search rankings, and high-quality content will gain an audience, and be able to keep it, without fear of corporate reprisals or aggressive algorithm updates.

If we really care about democratizing publishing, we wont always like what we read. There will be disagreements, but democracy requires a literate population eager for debate. We can challenge, discuss, and learn.

There are a lot of Robert B. Strasslers out there in the network, waiting patiently to be heard.

Like Loading...

Read the original post:
Bringing Back Blogs in the Age of Social Media Censorship - WP Tavern

The glitter of Botswanas shining example of democracy is fading as the country of 2.3-million people slowly slides towards authoritarianism.

The trend began under former president Ian Khama, who silenced critical media and cowed citizens into apathy. His term in office ended in April 2018.

Early indications that his successor, Mokgweetsi Masisi vice-president for four years had a penchant for intolerance was evinced in the run-up to the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) congress in April 2019 when he openly thwarted his rival, Pelonomi Venson-Moitois incipient challenge for the party presidency.

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a further centralisation of power: Parliament recently passed an emergency bill that gives Masisi sweeping powers to rule by decree for a six-month period.

It was bulldozed by the majority BDP despite opposition protests that putting power in the hands of one man will breed corruption and infringe on the powers of other branches of government.

On April 9, Botswanas government endorsed a six-month state of emergency.

The country was also placed under a 28-day lockdown, due to end on April 30. The lockdown was extended to May 7, and is now being gradually eased. To date, Botswana has reported one death and 23 cases of people infected with Covid-19.

The only explanation Masisi and his government have given, albeit vaguely, to the need for the lengthy state of emergency is that the Public Health Act is too weak to staunchly enforce a lockdown.

One alarming provision of the presidents emergency powers is the introduction of a prison term of up to five years or a $10 000 fine for anyone publishing information with the intention to deceive the public about Covid-19 or measures taken by government to address the virus.

Critics say the law, with broad and vague definitions, is a gift to authoritarian leaders who want to use the public health crisis to grab power and suppress freedom of speech.

Masisis backers argue that the law is needed as a deterrent. It has become necessary to curtail some rights to prevent the spread of the virus, said BDP spokesperson Kagelelo Banks Kentse.

There are well-grounded fears that the emergency powers will be used to extend the government grip on supposedly independent institutions. Already there are concerns that the security forces are meting outheavy-handed justice in the name of enforcing the lockdown.

Two police officers in central Botswana are facing assault charges and a schoolteacher was arrested after challenging the governments claim that a health worker who was screening lawmakers during a heated parliamentary debate on the state of emergency had tested positive for Covid-19.

On his Facebook page, the teacher, Rakkie Kelesamile, also questioned why people infected with Covid-19 inhospital were not developing further complications or recovering. It takes five days for corona to manifest in its victim. We are in the 14th day of lockdown. Common sense says patients should be showing signs of infection.

Police say Kelesamiles arrest is part of a larger effort to crack down on alleged misinformation under section 30 of the Emergency Powers Act.

His lawyer, Kgosietsile Ngakaagae believes that the government is trying to criminalise the airing of opinions. The interpretation of freedom of speech is wrong, he said. Making personal observation should not be criminalised.

Days earlier, police had arrested Justice Motlhabane, the spokesperson of Botswana Patriotic Front (BPF), an opposition party with ties to Khama for degrading and maligning the leadership.

The charges were labelled worrying by the Botswana Federation of Public, Private and Parastatal Sector Unions.They were also not brought under the Emergency Powers Act, but under the countrys Penal Code. Under the code, Motlhabane faces a potential fine of $50 or around P600.

Motlhabane and Oratile Dikologang are accused of suggesting on a Facebook page, Botswana Trending News, that Masisi had declared a lengthy state of emergency so that he could deal with his political rivals and business competitors.

A police spokesperson, assistant commissioner Dipheko Motube, said that all three men had published an offensive statement against the government as well as degrading and maligning the leadership of the country.

Motlhabane, who is out on bail, denied the charges, saying he does not have access to the Facebook account. He told INK Centre that the police gave him electrical shock treatment on several occasions while demanding certain information about a coup by the former president [Ian Khama].

They placed a Taser on my buttock and in between my thighs, he claimed. Biggie Butale, his lawyer and president of BPF, said the police do not have a case against his client.

He is not the administrator of the Facebook account in question, he said, adding: Police never questioned him over Covid-19 they asked him about a coup. You wonder what they are looking for.

Several other people have been charged under the Emergency Powers Act.

A South African woman, Charmaine Ibrahim, appeared before court on March 27 for alleging that two fellow South Africans in Botswana have tested positive for Covid-19. Ibrahim has since been released on bail.

One lawyer, Mboki Chilisa, commented on social media that there is no point in punishing innocuous false statements which no right-thinking member of the public could ever believe.

The Emergency Powers Act also risks worsening the already adversarial relationship between the government and private media. The Act prohibits journalists from using source(s) other than the [Botswana] Director of Health Services or the World Health Organisation when reporting on Covid-19. Journalists who use other sources potentially face a fine of $10 000 or a five-year jail term.

The executive director of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Botswana Chapter), Tefo Phatshwane believes that the emergency prohibits independent journalists from holding those in power to account.He said Masisi has started a censorship pandemic, using wide-ranging restrictions as a cover to violate freedom of expression. As journalists, we cant rely on a government that we are expected to police.

If the coronavirus outbreak has taught us anything beyond the necessity of washing our hands, it is that its victim has been leadership. Bureaucracy and incompetence have made it difficult to trust the WHO and governments worldwide.

On March 21, Masisi, who has a penchant for air travel, defied the lockdown to fly to Windhoek to witness the swearing in of Namibian President Hage Geingob.He insisted that the trip was essential to enable leaders to discuss strategies to combat Covid-19.

Government also botched the handling of the death of Botswanas first, and currently only, victim of Covid-19.A local newspaper reported that the funeral of the elderly woman, from Ramotswa in the south-east of the country was not handled in a manner consistent with guidelines for the burial of victims.Government admitted days later that she had died of the disease.

It is tempting to demand prompt action to combat those who undermine national and global efforts to combat the pandemic through disinformation. But Ngakaagae insists censorship should not be part of the cure.

Government should identify the most efficient responses and communicate them to the public and allow reasonable and genuinely held opinions to flourish. Government has to engage the public in dialogue, he said.

Joel Konopo works for the INK Centre for Investigative Journalism

See original here:
Censorship, the unexpected side-effect of Covid-19 - Mail and Guardian

The National Posts Jonathan Kay recently interviewed American author Dave Rubin, whose tour for his new book, Dont Burn This Book: Thinking for Yourself in the Age of Unreason, was disrupted by the ongoing pandemic, and is now being done out of Rubins garage.

Jonathan Kay: Nice suit. Look what Im wearing. Thanks for making the rest of us look like crap.

Dave Rubin: I thought Id keep it professional, you know? Im on a book tour.

Kay: Whats it been like doing a book tour without actually touring?

Rubin: I got to tell you, its really bizarre, actually. The book came out on Tuesday, April 28, and I was supposed to be in New York the week before, doing all kinds of press, going on every TV show you can imagine and meeting with the publishers and all that good stuff. And then I was supposed to be on a book tour starting that night. We were gonna be at the Gramercy Theater in New York. And then I think I was going to be in D.C. and then across the country for the next month and a half or so. And instead, Im in my garage. I mean, this is my garage. I happened to have a studio in my garage. So its kind of funny. Were seeing all these CNN anchors in their kitchens, in their living rooms and things. I was a little ahead on the home studio thing. So Ive got a nice professional setup here, which is great. And, you know, theres a certain convenience to it that I can do this all from here. But I guess it is missing a little something. Talking to a live person always adds a little something else to the conversation. But Ive enjoyed this. And in many ways its allowed me to do more than I was going to be able to do because I can basically just, every day for the last four or five days, Im starting in the morning. I started literally at 6 a.m. and I go till about 8 p.m., with just minor minor breaks and maybe lunch, if Im lucky. So, you know, Im happy to talk to people. Im glad the books being well received. And you do what you gotta do.

Kay: You write that your original book idea was about how you abandoned the left side of the political spectrum and then you decided you had a more interesting idea. Tell me about that.

Rubin: Yeah. The original title of the book was Why I Left the Left, which is the title of a very popular PragerU video that I did that has about 20 million views or so. I became sort of a left the left guy. I talk about the regressive left and that the left is no longer liberal.

Thats very much in the mix, the stew of things that Ive been talking about for the last five years or so. And I started writing that book. And then I quickly realized I was like, you know, I dont know if I want to write a book about just what Im against or what I used to be. I want to write a book about what Im for. And thats what it became: Dont Burn This Book. But I lay out three moments in the book that were my seminal wake up moments.

I wont give you all three. Ill give you one of them. You may know David Webb, who is a commentator, conservative commentator on Sirius XM Patriot Channel. He guest hosts on Fox News all the time. And years ago when I was a lefty, I was on the Young Turks. We were watching a clip of Fox News and David Webb came on and suddenly they were saying all the worst things about him. He was just talking about some basic conservative beliefs. Doesnt even matter what he was talking about specifically. But suddenly they were calling him an Uncle Tom and a sellout and a race traitor. Just all of the worst things that you could say about somebody. And what they didnt know was that a few years before I had had a show on Sirius XM and although I was a lefty and David Webb was on the right, wed met in the hall one day and we started chatting. I used to go on his show every week and wed debate topics and then wed go downstairs and have a steak and have some whisky. And we were good, even though we disagreed on almost everything. But I knew him to be a good man and forthright and a passionate advocate for his positions.

It wasnt some fake thing. And yet here the Young Turks were, the supposed tolerant people, the people who loved diversity. And they were suddenly seeing a black man. And just because he didnt think the way they want black people to think he was the bad guy. He was all the worst things you could say about somebody. And because I knew him, it suddenly became so stark, so clear to me that when we think of racism, we think, oh, that youre racist. You dont want those people using a water fountain, something like that, which obviously is racist. But theres a new pernicious racism, which is that you say youre for groups gays, blacks, women.

But you cant be for whole groups because, believe it or not, black people think all sorts of different things. Gay people think all sorts of different things. Women think all sorts of different things. And to watch a group of supposedly tolerant people be angry at a black man who just thought differently than them, I realized was a new sort of systemic racism. And I say systemic because its sort of spread throughout all of the left. And even right now, Harvard discriminates against Asian people because they had too many Asian people by their measure being admitted to the university.

What the left does is they see racism almost everywhere except where it really is. They're looking for it constantly. So they have to find it.

Dave Rubin

Kay: But what about the counterargument that theres still a lot of old-fashioned racism thats still around.

Rubin: I dont see that now. Thats not to say that there isnt a KKK. There are some marginal white supremacist groups or the Westboro Baptist Church or something like that, which dont have any mainstream traction, because anytime they do any stupid little thing that, of course, the media goes crazy with it. Does David Duke exist? Of course. David Duke exists. Does he have any influence in any way whatsoever? Of course not. So I dont see actual influential bigotry out of the conservative side or on the right. But I do see it almost everywhere on the left. The left has become obsessed with identity, obsessed with gender and sexuality and the colour of skin. And I wouldnt even call that reverse racism. I would call that racism. If you rail all day long against white Christian men because theyre white Christian men, thats racism.

Again, Im not saying that there are no racist people on either side of the political aisle. Of course there are. But I think what the left does is they see racism almost everywhere except where it really is. Theyre looking for it constantly. So they have to find it. And just because you believe in low taxes doesnt mean youre a racist. Just because you believe that America should have a strong border, doesnt mean youre a racist.

These movements, they get equality, but then they the activists don't want to go out of business. So then they have to just keep finding new and new perceived oppression.

Dave Rubin

Kay: Your book is partly about what you call the pitfalls of leaving the left. What are those pitfalls?

Rubin: The biggest growing political movement or political ideology in America right now is the disaffected liberal, which is what I would say that I am I am a true liberal. And I lay out what classical liberalism is, which, of course, is about individual rights, meaning everyone that is a legal citizen of any country should be treated equally under the law. And then basically laissez-faire economics, light touch. Thats pretty much what my belief system is. Thats live and let live. And we could talk about the marginal differences between that and libertarianism.

As far as the pitfalls, well, I lay out some of the things that I guarantee will happen to you if you leave the left or not even leave the left once you start questioning it. Because if you remember four or five years ago when I started talking about my frustrations with the left, I was always saying we. I was saying we guys, we the left have abandoned liberalism. We have to fix liberalism. We have to stand for the things that were supposed to stand for, like free speech and open inquiry and not deplatforming speakers and destroying people. These are liberal principles. So I was doing this from the left. And what I think a lot of people see right now is that Im trying to give them the courage, I suppose, to be able to walk and not be destroyed once you pick one position that is counter to whatever mainstream leftist orthodoxy is of the day.

If you dont check all of those 10 boxes, they will eliminate you and they will try to mob you on social media. They will go after your employer. You will watch friends and family members turn on you and call you all of the worst things. And even if you say no, those are none of my beliefs. Well, then theyll move the goalposts and try to extrapolate something else on you. One of the very important tips that I give people is dont apologize unless you genuinely have done something wrong. Im not saying never apologize. Weve all wronged people. Weve all done things that are wrong. So you can apologize if its earnest. But I think a lot of times that we see this when the mob comes after celebrities all the time, you know, a celebrity will say something that everyone knows is basically right. You may remember Mario Lopez said that we shouldnt be something to the effect of we shouldnt be transitioning kids who are four years old, you know, gender transition. And its like everyone knows thats the truth. Thats not anti-trans. Its just that we might want to wait till theyre a little bit older. Then we could discuss all of that stuff. But he got mobbed. And then what does he do? He basically issues in a faux apology, even though we know he doesnt really apologize. He doesnt really feel any contrition about what he said.

Another one would be a Hollywood actor who Im sort of friendly with, Mark Duplass, he basically tweeted out something to the effect that Ben Shapiro is not the devil, he just has different political thoughts. He got mobbed and then deleted the tweet and issued an apology. And its like once you do that, once you apologize for something youre not sorry for, now theyve got their foot on your neck forever and you will never get up. And theyre using that power over you. So one of the things you can do is be brave and stand up for what you believe. And I think if more of us start doing it, we can actually silence that mob.

Kay: But political cults come from the right side of the spectrum, too, no?

Rubin: Lets not forget, it was mostly people on the right who were going after violent video games. Remember, they were trying to ban Mortal Kombat from the shelves. So these things are cyclical. And Im glad you brought it up because its an important point.

Kay: Were talking about censorship and preventing people from saying what they think. But its interesting that youre not talking about government censoring people which is what we would have been worried about 20 or maybe even 10 years ago. Instead, were talking about people censoring each other.

Rubin: We should always be wary of the government silencing dissent, silencing speech. But at the moment, I mean, Donald Trump can tweet whatever he wants and then what happens? The first hundred people that respond to him are usually blue check journalists or actors or activists, all telling him hes a Nazi, hes Hitler. Hes going to burn in hell. I mean, the worst things you can imagine. And guess what? Nobody knocks on their door. The Gestapo doesnt show up to drag them off to the gulag. I mean, theres no version of any of that. The bigger worry to me is that we are censoring ourselves. That is separate than the government. Its an important distinction.

Kay: Youre a gay man. Ive noticed, anecdotally, that many of the people pushing back against social-justice cultism are gay men, lesbians, Jews, Muslims people who have some trait that makes them stand out from ordinary white people. Do you think having at least some mark of outsider status gives you moral capital to push back?

Rubin: I love this question because Ive asked this of other guests of mine who are in similar situations. So Douglas Murray, the wonderful author from the U.K. whos written a lot about this and talked about immigration in Europe and all sorts of things. His last book, Madness of Crowds, is one of the best books of the year. He happens to be gay. Hes a gay conservative in the U.K. And Ive asked him about this. I see this from women. I see this from black people. It sort of gets to what I was saying earlier about why when you say youre for a group, you will actually crush all of the free thinkers within that group. And thats what Im trying to restore. Im trying to stop that from happening.

If youre a minority because of your sexuality or your skin colour or some of these things, now, I dont think that should give you power over people. I dont think that inherently makes your opinions correct. I mean, that would be absurd. As absurd as saying, you know, someone who is a white male, that his opinions are correct just because of that. So those are silly notions. But what I do think is probable is that if you are a minority of some sort, you start looking at the world from a bit of an outsider perspective. Youre not in the machine all the time. And because of that, you suddenly realize that uniqueness is deeply important. You realize there is something different.

So the most interesting example of this would be whats sort of happened to the gay community. I would say that for four decades, the gay community brought a tremendous amount of art and music and comedy and all of this cultural stuff that would start in gay clubs or whatever. I was never even into that scene at all. Much of this is before my time. But we all know that so much great music and all of this cultural stuff came from the gay community. Then, things shifted and the progressive movement sort of infiltrated the gay community. Im not saying, well, their intentions were bad. Gay marriage, by the way, is an extremely positive development that the progressives pushed because they were pushing for equality. But they were pushing for gay people to be equal, not to be above. And what happens usually is then these movements, they get equality, but then they the activists dont want to go out of business, sort of. So then they have to just keep finding new and new perceived oppression.

So what I think, unfortunately, has happened is the gay community, for whatever that term broadly means, they went from fighting for something. They went from being outsiders. And by the way, that comes with a lot of pain and all sorts of stuff. I mean, many gay people have written about this. And, you know, from my own experience, the pain and drugs and just doing stuff that I shouldnt have done, its just part of being closeted and the outsider and the rest of it. But you take that, then you get equality. And now thats great. Now things are good. But then the progressives move in and they kind of use you as a tool.

So if you notice, theres really nothing interesting coming out of the gay community these days. And that is to directly answer your question. That is why were watching so many gay people walk away (from progressive orthodoxy) right now. And by the way, its the exact same thing with the black community.

Kay: Youre an American. Do you find your political message resonates with Canadians? It used to be that a political writer like you was mostly a celebrity in your own country. But thanks to social media, things are much more global.

Rubin: It really, really does. Now, part of that I have to credit Jordan Peterson, obviously, because, you know, Jordan, whose origin he was a clinical psychologist in Toronto and professor at the University of Toronto, you know, hes sort of Canadas biggest export over the last couple of years, certainly intellectually their biggest export. And I toured with Jordan Peterson. We had many stops in Canada. Ive done some speaking events with Maxime Bernier from the Canadian Peoples party. And I do sense that there is a strong liberty movement growing in Canada. You know, as Justin Trudeau and the Liberals of Canada sort of extend their power. And I know you guys have all sorts of problems. You know, Western Canada and the Calgary area feeling that theyre sort of being left out from what the decision-making process is. I sense that there is a there is a strong liberty movement there. So we absolutely wonderful receptions in all of our Canadian stops. I love doing them. We had a running joke in every Canadian stop on the tour because I would moderate the Q-and-A at the end of the show. So the way the shows would work, I would do about 15 minutes of crowd warm-up. Jordan would give about an hour and a half speech and then we would do about 45 minutes of Q-and-A. And each time, somebody would ask if Jordan would run for prime minister and hed make you know, its a fun, silly comment about Trudeau. And it would always get a huge laugh. So I do sense that that there is a certain set of Canadians who are waking up to some of these more liberty or individual rights issues, which maybe isnt fully within the Canadian political ethos as much as it is within an American one.

But, yes, to your point. Look, were all on YouTube, were all podcasting. Were all doing all these things. And what is local is now everything. You know, its like everything is now local and whats local is now everything.

Kay: Thanks so much for joining us. Stay safe!

National Post

Read more here:
Dave Rubin interview: His new book, censorship on the left and what he sees happening in Canada - National Post