|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|
Free Speech Online: A Different Path By Jim Baer As I sit down to write this Newsletter, I just read that Elon Musk is thinking of starting his own social media platform that will promote – what he believes is – free speech.
The above raises the question, “Were someone to ask me to consider starting a social media platform, what kind of platform would I develop?”
I would start by enumerating a variety of ills that have been exacerbated by social media: the virality of content that stokes outrage, the complete lack of context for much of what we view, the spread of disinformation, an increase in polarization, echo chambers, lack of thoughtful engagement, and the need for soundbites at the expense of research, to name a few. All of this has run rampant as our tech giants have stood by (and in some cases encouraged) this complete degradation of our discourse. Now I’m certainly not advocating Orwellian thought police. What I am wondering is, what if the burden fell to all of us, rather than to just those tech giants, and what if we met that call?
For example: Could we promote free speech that would bring people together instead of encouraging polarization? Could we find subjects that draw people in that are not based on tribalism? My algorithm, to the extent that an algorithm exerts influence, would favor civil discussion.
Put another way, my litmus test question would be, “Is the discussion elevating?” From this perspective, we could also ask ourselves,"Does a potential posting motivate us to be better neighbors and more respectful?“ Or, "Is the intention of our platform to bring people together rather than pull us further apart?” Or, “Do arguments and discussions on our platform encourage us to be honest, loyal, steadfast, and courageous?”
An argument or discussion that comes from a place of humility and respect is something you know when you experience it. We feel hopeful in the presence of a sincere teacher or leader. I think we have also witnessed something elevating when we witness the speeches given by President Zelensky and his decision to stay and work to inspire his people.
Now let’s apply these principles to my “new social media platform.” The algorithm that I would propose would favor discourse that invites discussion. From this perspective, we would focus on whether the information was presented in a humble and respectful manner. Consider a debate where both sides are free to present their side of the issue, but they have to be respectful and avoid ad hominem attacks. When we watch a debate with rules and a mediator, we the audience are free to come to our own conclusion. The central question then becomes: Are the debaters following the rules set up for the debate? Long ago the US Supreme Court adopted guidelines as to what is protected speech. Rules for debate are important. But can we all agree to follow a set of guidelines? Could a new standard be set for us all to follow, where in any debate or discussion with the other, we each would approach the conversation with humility and curiosity? If we go into a conversation “knowing” we are right and with the goal of lecturing and “saving” the other, are we not just setting ourselves up for frustration and failure?
Rather, would it not be far better for each of us to enter into a discussion assuming we could personally be wrong, and with a sincere desire to listen first, learn and better understand the other person’s perspective? This approach would require us to bear the discomfort of being triggered when someone strenuously disagrees with us. Thus, I believe the creation of a “safe space” to be honest about our feelings, instead of running away or becoming defensive or combative, is necessary to facilitate such discourse. I suggest that this is a lifetime practice, and a path worth embarking on. This could be a starting point where a group of people come together from different sides of the aisle to develop rules that both sides could agree to follow.
What I envision is something like an old-school town hall meeting where a moderator maintains the needed decorum, and where a discussion can take place in a respectful manner, because the citizens of the town recognize the importance of treating their neighbors with respect. But this won’t happen until each of us remembers we are all Americans, despite differences in race, religion, sexual orientation, or political party. There is no room for demonizing the other if we are going to make this work. We can do this, however, if each of us develops the character trait of humility. We all know what’s at stake. We have seen that democracy can be difficult to preserve and that it requires nurturing. As we have moved more from a representative democracy to a pure democracy where we each vote directly for our leaders, we have a duty to be active stewards of our own destiny which at a minimum requires us to be better informed and seek the truth from our sources of information.
CATCH UP ON RECENT PUCK EPISODES
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-41-neil-sequeira/id1338978270?i=1000554350539
Jim sits down with Neil Sequeira, founder and managing director at Defy, an early-stage venture fund focused on emerging high-potential investments. The discussion ranges from weathering downturns in the economy, and working towards positive change in consumer financial services to blockchain, the market, and a more socially conscious workforce.