On March 12, the world celebrated Internet Freedom of Speech Day, established in 2008 by Reporters Without Borders. By today, March 12, Zuckerberg has taken up the pre-holiday watch – Meta (nee Facebook) has lifted the ban on calls for violence if they concern Russian soldiers, and allowed calling for the death of V.V. Putin.
Zuckerberg’s rush to freedom is bold, but still incomplete.
You can wish death to the Russian authorities and the army, but such wishes to the authorities and the army of other countries are still prohibited. Perhaps temporarily. This is the impressive – and probably the final – chord of freedom of speech on the Internet. And how touching it all began.
In 1996, libertarian John Perry Barlow became famous with the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace, in which he wrote: “Governments of the industrialized world, you weary giants of flesh and steel; my home is cyberspace, the new home of consciousness.
On behalf of the future, I beg you, who have everything in the past, leave us alone. You are superfluous among us. You do not have supreme power where we are gathered. The global public space that we are building is by its very nature independent of the tyrannies that you seek to impose on us. You you have no methods of coercion that could frighten us.”
Today, a quarter of a century later, reviewing the current state of cyberspace (the same Zuckerberg with his metaverse, but is he the only one such ), we have to admit that the libertarian Barlow got a little excited. In the “new house of consciousness” the spirit is heavier than in the closet. Although Barlow’s error is understandable. Around the same time, in the mid-1990s, the Russian libertarian G. V. Lebedev proclaimed:
“Everything new is free.” In which he was partly right. Only freely, not because of the remarkable qualities of this new one, which make it invulnerable to tyrannical attacks, but because the new, which is in an embryonic state, is still too inconspicuous and hands do not reach it. It’s about like a deserted ocean expanse, when Columbus’ caravels plied it, it was completely free from attempts by anyone to regulate. Pirates of the Caribbean and measures against them appeared only a century and a half later.
As soon as this new one passes the stage of diapers and nipples and grows a little, as once again there is confirmation:
“The fate of people everywhere is the same:
Where there is a drop of good, there is on guard
Enlightenment or a tyrant.”
Moreover, the difference between enlightenment and a tyrant is not quite obvious. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who in 2011 ecstatically sang about “Twitter revolutions” in the Arab countries, clearly considered herself a bearer of enlightenment. Whereas other residents of these devastated countries had a different opinion. And in principle, civil society (that is, education) can be no less totalitarian than the one whom it calls a tyrant, and sometimes even more so. It is said about this: “Depend on the king, depend on the people – is it all the same to us?”
So, with the regulation of the Internet, not everything is so simple. Over the past five years, the bearers of Western enlightenment have made such progress in regulation (mostly completely idiotic – but you have to train the public, and here the worse, the better) that some tyrant will be envious. And censorship in social networks controlled by Western owners, in various Facebooks and Twitters, makes Glavlit remember, and sometimes the comparison is more to the benefit of Glavlit.
However, the statute of the reporter-limitless holiday remains the same. The enemies of freedom on the Internet are denounced, by which they mean exclusively the governments of countries that are considered by boundless reporters to be undemocratic and tyrannical.
As in 2009, the authorities of countries that “provide their citizens with only partial access to information posted on the World Wide Web” were considered enemies of the Internet, and now they are considered. Although today, anyone who observes the practice of crystal-democratic countries (that is, those who recommend themselves as such) in terms of restricting access to information will only laugh at naive reporters.
And, of course, any propaganda on the Internet, both gray and completely black, if it is directed against non-democratic countries, is not considered at all in the context of freedom of speech on the Internet. Why consider it when they are a matter of honor, a matter of glory, a matter of valor and heroism. Restrictions on access to information resources of non-democratic countries are also, of course, not considered. How about allowing them to pour their poison on the citizens of the free world?
You can adhere to one or another point of view on issues of current politics, you can even wish for a constitution, even stellate sturgeon with horseradish, but minimal honesty makes you admit that the expression “World Wide Web” needs to be labeled “outdated.” Web fragmentation is a fait accompli. And we owe this not so much to the orders of official governments as to the actions of the so-called. BigTech, who have been the loudest in their commitment to limitless freedom of speech on the internet.
The post The West celebrates victory over freedom of speech appeared first on The Frontier Post.