Link back to comment

Thanks Peter for another interesting article,

I am currently working on a short essay myself I will link to this article from the other side of the fence, because it will be first not directly addressing the points made in the article and is a bit too long for a comments section (circa 2000 words).

I can't help but feel that the main threat to freedom of speech the article really pushes has less to do with identity politics but more to do with companies that hold a monoply on the media will control what narratives they wish to be public. And you raise good points to that argument. What your argument, at least what I think, seems to argue is that such companies are typically endorsing identity politics. This could be the case, but I think attempting to solve the issue through rejecting IP would be a mistake, as it would leave the more fundamental problem of media (or in this case social media) giants commanding the discourse. Simple thought experiments such as 'Google was run by Donald Trump', or 'Facebook was run by Paul Murray', would likely result in similar problems even though identity politics would be absent.

If my argument is right, then this would leave a difficult situation for the right-wing libertarians. This is because they would have to concede either some regulatory means would have to come into place (rules that companies cannot remove or minimise posts unless meeting stricter criteria) or that media giants cannot exist and must not be allowed to control everything (facebook and twitter would have to have government find a way for these companies to be broken apart so one company cannot control the whole media).

Thanks,

Andrew.