Summary:
Concerns About Social Media: The author draws parallels between concerns that led to discussions about banning TikTok in the U.S. and the current state of X (formerly Twitter).
X as a Threat: The author argues that X, under Elon Musk's ownership, poses a threat to Canadian democracy.
Increased Racism and Misinformation: The platform is described as having become more racist and a source of increasing misinformation since Musk's acquisition.
Content Moderation: Musk's leadership is criticized for gutting content moderation, unbanning alt-right figures, and turning the platform into a partisan propaganda machine.
"Free Speech Absolutism": Musk's defense of his actions using "free speech absolutism" is dismissed as untenable.
Canadian Law: Canadian freedom of expression law is noted to be more robust than that of the U.S., allowing for reasonable limits on speech.
Foreign Influence: The author suggests that X's current conduct would not be tolerated if it were aligned with a government like China.
Musk and Trump: Musk's close ties to Donald Trump and the potential for pro-Trump propaganda targeting Canadian voters are highlighted as a specific threat.
Echoes of the Broadcasting Act: The author draws a parallel to the Broadcasting Act of 1958, which restricted foreign ownership of broadcasters to protect Canadian discourse.
Message to Social Media Companies: Banning X would send a message to other social media companies about their responsibilities to Canadians.
Call to Action: The author urges the current Prime Minister to ban X before the next election.
Trump's annexation comments: Notes Trump's comments about annexing Canada.
X as an Anti-Canadian Propaganda Machine: Concludes that X should be treated as a real threat.
We are exposed to the same material as the people who choose to believe them. We aren't anymore special or smart than anyone else when it comes to material we have available or see when people smarter than us like doctors can choose to believe it.
You say take money out of politics and I agree, but money is currently in politics and these type of talks of education while true are not effective enough in a system that has money in politics. And social media is currently run by oligarchs. These type of changes will take decades to undo. Education alone is not enough to combat the problem right now.
And as you said dumb people were dumb before, but what has drastically changed is what dumb people in masses choose to believe leading to an increase uptick in harm to society. First it was flat earth people laughed about. Then antivax and now support of dictators.
People keep underestimating the power of disinformation and how quickly it takes root, but how even harder it is to deprogram.
Disinformation is powerful. But is it just antivax & flat earth? Biden's cognitive issues were apparent long before the debate. Do you remember when Republicans were calling on the DoJ to release audio of Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. Hur, in his report, concluded that Biden should not face criminal charges over his mishandling of documents but also impugned the president’s age and competence. Republicans argued that it would at least show proof of serious cognitive decline which was important to know about the President.
What did Democrats do at the time? They ran cover for Biden. They claimed he was young & dynamic behind the scenes like the Wizard of Oz. Karine Jean-Pierre lied time & time again. Merrick Garland ignored a subpoena & was held in contempt. All leading up to the debate where Biden's cognitive decline was so obvious that he was later basically forced to drop out because everyone realized they had been lied to. At a time of a fascist potentially getting elected as they claimed, Biden & his team decided to lie to you which ultimately helped Trump significantly. Now imagine a different scenario where the audio got released much sooner, the people found out much sooner & a new candidate was picked to replace Biden much sooner.
The point is that disinformation goes both ways. Having an authority to declare what is true/untrue provides a centralized system for a fascist then use to control what is true/false. Now there are some avenues that you could take if you wanted to. You could study law & find justification to bring a case against Musk for manipulating social media. You could get to discovery & provide evidence, and get a court to even make a ruling requiring that every time someone visits X they get a notice about what was determined. But deciding what people can/can't see cause you don't think they can decide for themselves I believe sets too dangerous of prescedent.