I have been thinking quite a bit about blogging in the last few days. One reason will become apparent this week, but it's a bit prosaic compared the more existential issue that has been troubling me the most. That is whether blogging in the way that I do it is something that will be possible in the future.
It is more than a decade ago now that John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network and I identified fascism as the biggest potential threat we faced. I wish that prospect did not seem more likely now than it did then, but I have to admit that it does. When Hungary and Poland are both cracking down on free speech and removing the right of their elected oppositions whilst Turkey is actively suppressing any potential criticism of its President you realise that there is something deeply pernicious going on. And these things have a habit of spreading.
And it is already not just in those places. We all know the loss of freedom that we have suffered in the UK over that intervening period. There has been the gagging law. Trade union rights have been diminished, considerably. In many places in the UK it is now illegal for three people to meet together in public without prior permission under devolved powers now used by many local authorities. Libel law has supposedly been reformed; I have not been noticing anybody celebrating. The right of free expression, traditionally enjoyed by the UK's academics, appears to be at risk. And that is by no means all the threats that have arisen.
Now we have senior politicians saying they do not value the opinions of experts. Such comments can lead to other things.
And we know that access to publish on the internet might in the future be much more heavily dependent upon ability to pay for access.
I do seriously wonder as a result whether I have been living through the best years of blogging, without realising it. That they might have coincided with the last years of something approximating to free speech might be an uncomfortable truth.
I sincerely hope I am wrong. But the way politics is going in some countries at the time that the chance of a major shift towards right wing populism in the UK seems very real indeed does worry me, greatly.
And I wonder what my response should be. And how, and on what, I should blog as a result given my concern for poverty, equality, opportunity, choice and democarcy. I put the question out there. Comments welcome.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
You say: “And we know that access to publish on the internet might in the future be much more heavily dependent upon ability to pay for access.” – I don’t understand what this means. There are no restrictions on gaining access unless you make restrictions on your servers. At least not in the West.
There are new channels opening up like Medium.
The suggestion is that larger companies may in the future control access to bandwidth
I know it has not happened yet, but I see the discussion, often
This is your field Den: any opinion to offer?
Back in 2008 – when I was still heavily involved in this type of research – I wrote a conference paper called ‘Digital Democracy: a critique’ This is an excerpt from the introduction which fits with the theme of this blog.
‘The purpose of these examples [of claims from the period of the transformational power of Web 2.0] is to illustrate how the advent of Web 2.0 and the surge in forms of social networking that have accompanied it has led to a resurgence of interest in the impact, or potential impact, of the Internet on a wide range of social and economic relations, including democracy and governance. A feature of the social and technological trajectory of Web 2.0 – as with the first Internet revolution and Web 1.0 — may therefore be that it reinvents or reinvigorates democracy, by, for example, enabling political practices that would otherwise not have been possible, or, at the least, would have been logistically more difficult before the Internet. Indeed, it is possible that the explosion of social networking of Web 2.0 throws into question many of the propositions and assumptions concerning the Internet and political participation, governance and democracy that have been constructed from research based on the first Internet revolution and Web 1.0.
This paper argues otherwise. I start by briefly reviewing the emergence of the concept and practice of what has variously been described as teledemocracy, electronic democracy, e-democracy, or digital democracy (I use these interchangeably in this paper depending on the context). I then outline some of the most well known attempts at analysing the relationship between new information and communication technologies (ICTs) – which in the context of digital democracy nowadays equates almost exclusively to the Internet. Sticking with this specific focus I then propose a critical realist explanation of why the Internet has historically proved central to e-democracy, but why ultimately it has failed to deliver the ‘dreams of digital democracy’ so widely envisaged in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Apologies, I hit reply before adding this from the conclusion to the paper I referred to:
‘By the late 1990s what had emerged, therefore, were a revised set of institutional relations where the situational logics and forms of strategic action governmental and (the majority of) commercial agent’s pursued focused on protection, as in the pre- Internet years, or, where the nature of relations were now based on contingent incompatibilities, elimination became the situational logic. This was/is the fate that increasingly befell any code layer community – such as the ‘white hat’ hacker movement — that attempted to resist or not conform to the new structures of control and regulation of the Internet. We had, in other words, entered a cycle of structural transformation which sought to impose on the Internet and its communities, in a modified and updated ‘information age’ form, the structures of neo-liberal capitalism and consumer democracy that had proliferated in the terrestrial world over the period that the Internet and its ‘netizens’ enjoyed their golden age.’
You were prescient
There are 2 sides to this:
1. Can I host a site that is free of restriction? The answer is 100% ‘yes.’ I have always hosted in the US and today via Amazon Web Services operated under management by a third party because I don’t want any restrictions on what we say or do. The issue then becomes one of acting responsibly if not always in reverential terms. I see no way that situation is going to be compromised any time soon. Even if it was then there are still plenty of nation states with solid server access that could take on board the task of content hosting while providing public access.
2. Individual access – yes, it may surprise some but it is routine for large (and some small) companies to monitor employee email for a variety of good reasons. Some companies actively block certain types of broad based email such as subscriptions to services (for example newsletters) that would otherwise be off-business topic or are deemed bandwidth hogs. Monitoring is a contentious topic although I have no problem with the general principle as it relates to business activity.
A good number of the subscribers to our content use gmail, yahoo! or other private email accounts. No corporation can legislate against that because to do so would be illegal. That then means private individuals can gain access to content, free of any restrictions that any employer might attempt to put upon them.
Most people now have a smartphone. This will provide unfettered access to content which can then be subscribed to on an ad hoc basis and/or via RSS feeds, newsletters and the like.
There is a small and growing number of media outlets that provide access via smartphone apps. These cannot be prevented from being installed on private phones since the big stores i.e. Apple and Google are firmly in the ‘freedom’ camp.
Some people think that content will go to Facebook. I think this will only happen for he mega media providers. It is almost certainly not going to happen for niche or specialist media in the immediate or even medium term.
In short – don’t worry – there are and will be plenty of ways to reach an audience that cares about what you have to say for a very long time to come.
Maybe Den
Maybe
But I am not as confident as you
Were I known to be reading this and commenting as I do, I would be fired.
Which in itself is deeply worrying
Thank you for taking the risk
Then beware of your system administrator, Nile. I know of quite a few examples where they routinely survey the detail of traffic going into and out of their organisations.
When I first read the title of this blog , I thought, Oh no, Richard is packing in the blog as he is too busy (which would have been understandable)-maybe this is what you mean by ‘One reason will become apparent this week.’
The possibility of increased repression is very great and as you point out, the gradual atrophying of the freedom of speech is alarming, more so as a large part of the populace doesn’t appear to be noticing it. A recent poll put the Tories on 36% to Labours 32% showing how one of the vilest Governments in recent history is not being excoriated by a large swathe of the public. This is largely due to the abject failure of the Left which is only showing signs of life’ when it is almost too late. Of course the Blair /Brown years were the ones that really accelerated the process of the assault on liberty.
Interesting to read a Guardian article from 2008 noting the UN expressing concerns over Britain’s freedom of speech.
There seems to be two types of fascism at work here, in my opinion:
1) The fascism of neo-liberalism (corporatist fascism)
2) The fascism that has resulted from the failure of the Left.
People like Gove, Johnson and Smith belong to 1 above but are clearly ‘borrowing’ the techniques of 2 above to manipulate populism to their favour. This is a very dangerous development and as you noted, Richard, it could prove effective.
2, above are critical of neo-liberalism ( even UKIP’s anti bedroom tax policy espoused an element of that) but mix this with heady nationalism and isolationism as well as spurious notions of ‘defenders of national culture.’
Given the nature of the appalling EU debate (‘debase’ as PSR called it) I have now decided to abstain in the EU vote out of a sense of utter revulsion.
This blog, I still maintain, is one of the best around and I am amazed (and disturbed) that more people are not engaged with it. Your voice, Richard and the unique way you interact with the online debate makes this blog vital. You are now very visibly part of our political scene and will remain an important voice. My own view is that you are already raising the vital questions and stimulating thought in people like me and many others. I hope you feel you can continue doing that. The themes , I would list as important to me would be:
1) Continue elucidating the operations of our monetary system and the REAL choices that are available to us.
2) Continue to bust the myths of neo-liberalism and its suppression of real human agency
3) Continue to advocate for policies that genuinely improve lives
4) Continue to expose mendacious Government behaviour and statistical deception
5) Continue to be the full human being you are who gives generously of himself and values the other.
Thanks Simon
Appreciated and noted
I didn’t comment on your post about the “ineffable Gove”, inveighing against experts, because, having posted extensively on this theme – my piece on the difference between “rule” and “governance”, where one of my points was Thatcher’s and Blair’s shared hatred of experts, and my earlier characterisation of Margaret Thatcher as a Right-wing Maoist, since she shared Mao’s hatred and contempt for experts as blocks and brakes on her Messianic faith in the market – as I say, I didn’t comment, because my breath was taken away by seeing “nature imitate art” so glaringly, with Gove parroting, almost on cue, the guff which swirls around in his fevered brain.
But turning to your question, Richard, I have two observations: first, it is truly astonishing that a Government that made so much noise about Magna Carta last year, should in reality be so bent (in BOTH sense of the word!) on, in general, invalidating the reasoning behind Magna Carta, and in particular, on creating a legal system for the rich only, effectively thrusting us to pre-1215.
My second observation is that the solution to the conundrum you have identified is that the fight for justice and humanity is probably going to have to go underground, transforming itself into a Maquis, or, to use earlier models from our history such as the Captain Boycott movement in Ireland, and work at the grassroots, to break out into public acts of civil disobedience, because, for sure, a repressive, neo-feudal, and incipiently neo-fascist, state is growing apace, an development that – whatever good (or bad) reasons there may be for Brexit, will only gather pace under the rule of the illiberal crackpots (do you want to be ruled by Boris, Gove, IDS, Grayling and Preeti Patel? I certainly don’t) who lead the Brexit campaign – and whose first actions will probably be a bonfire of the remaining EU protections on employment and consumer rights.
“Interesting tines” indeed.
Agreed
‘do you want to be ruled by Boris, Gove, IDS, Grayling and Preeti Patel? ‘
Indeed, I was intending to vote out as a supporter of the ‘invisible’ Left argument for it and for ‘dialectical reasons’. I now consider that the risk of a vote giving even a homeopathic quantity of support to them, however unintended and inadvertent, is too risky, so I will be following Paul Mason’s justification for an abstain vote.
Sorry: I should have written ‘abstention.’ We can’t vote ‘abstain’ unfortunately.
Practically, what the response should be is to get the website hosted abroad so as to make enforcement more difficult — in fact split up things to make enforcement as difficult as possible. Does that somehow remind us of tax?
Yes, (and I suspect it’s a can of worms) but defending freedom of speech is a fundamental human right whereas companies have no human rights.
It is also worth noting that whilst there are more and more laws passed, austerity consistently reduces the ability of the state to enforce them.
The Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs website bis hosted abroad for this reason
Comments welcome.
That’s already a major departure from your normal practice so let’s see if that’s the future for blogging and free speech?
There have been 99,054 comments to date on this blog
That is more than 27 a day on average
But more like 70 a day on average now
Only trolls are blocked – but that is because they are not commenting
Now go and rejoin that club
I was afraid it was too good to be true. Your blog would be a lot more interesting if you allowed (or even encouraged) dissenting opinion.
I am entirely happy with dissent
But not trolling
Unfortunately it seems few know how to dissent. It seems argument is an art lost on those who need to use it
I am entirely happy with dissent
My first comment was precisely that: a comment. I was suggesting that in the interests of promoting precisely that free speech which you believe to be threatened, you adopt more of an open door ‘below the line’ policy on your blog.
Your response that I should go and rejoin that club (presumably of trolls, given your previous line) suggests that even a positive and harmless suggestion can raise your hackles. So where would dissent fit in if mere comments provoke such rejoinders?
I am aware of your past pattern of comment
It is always the same: what appears a reasonable comment at first descends into a breach of the comments policy very rapidly
And yes, promotion of neoliberal dogma is a contravention of the comments policy because this blog is not about celebrating failure but is instead about how to find alternatives to it
Dammit, even the IMF is doing that now
Wasting time on failed ideology is trolling as a result
If you can comment within that constraint feel free to try. But you have to remember that editorial freedom is a right
The Meissen Bison has managed three posts today with not a single piece of useful information to add to this debate in any of them.
I do hope that your parents did not spend any money on your education, for it was clearly wasted if this is the best you can muster in a reasonable discussion on the subject in question.
Quite amazing!
“And yes, promotion of neoliberal dogma is a contravention of the comments policy because this blog is not about celebrating failure but is instead about how to find alternatives to it”
Well, at least you’ve admitted it. I suppose a discussion is a lot more fun if you don’t have to worry about facing opposition. Nonetheless, it is rather worrying. Presupposing that the contrary viewpoint is wrong is a very narrow-minded – and, historically, scary – position to take.
Not surprised, though. Shutting down debate is a favourite in the playbook of illiberals.
There is nothing illiberal about this
Let’s be clear, neoliberalism is hegemonic in our universities. It has suppressed dissent. And it is very clear it has failed. The need to create a space to discuss alternatives is not to avoid debate: it is an honest endeavour that I am wholly at liberty to carry out in any way I wish and which you have no right to impede, much as it would seem to be your illiberal desire to do so.
Respectfully, the problem is all in the hypocrisy of your assumption that you have the right to dictate the terms of debate to whoever. If you were a true liberal you would realise that is not true. Your colours are revealed for what they are.
No Richard, it is to avoid debate. That’s the whole point of shutting out criticism. To stop debate.
You can say it aids discussion and creates a safe space all you like. But what you cannot say is that it doesn’t allow for the avoidance of debate.
You are already repeating yourself and time wasting by reiteration of a point to which I have already responded
I debate, willingly and often with others on the folly of neoliberalism, and am accustomed to winning
But that is not the role of this blog and you have just got yourself back on the trolling list
But you have to remember that editorial freedom is a right.
I’d grant you that, of course, within certain obvious constraints: libel, incitement and so on. But the interesting point is where editorial freedom and freedom of speech collide.
My argument, such as it is, is that to deplore the erosion of the latter while rigorously enforcing the former is curious.
Keith Fletcher’s comment is unfair. The title of the post is The Future of Blogging and my contribution to this discussion – in response to the invitation to submit comments – is to suggest a relaxation in favour of free speech.
I shall draw a line here unless you wish me to develop the argument further.
You really do miss the point and I know that is both deliberate and intentional to waste my time
There is no way on earth that denying you the right to comment here removes your right of free speech. You can comment at will on what I say wherever you like. Tim Worstall has made a fool of himself for a decade doing just that. But I am under no obligation as a result to provide you with a platform to do so, any more than I need take a phone call from you or allow you into my house so you might harangue me
So you either have no clue what you are talking about, or cannot debate, or you are wasting my time
Whichever it is, you’re now back on the trolling list, and for good reason
A small point on closing down contrary arguments and the general approach to debate on this blog can be drawn anecdotally from my own experience. I started reading your blog about 3 years ago. At that stage I considered myself left wing having voted labour exclusively for over 30 years. I now find that I’m a neoliberal. I wonder if I am the only one who has gone through this conversion from interacting with this blog?
I admit I find that a little surprising
But many in Labour have not appreciated the reality of their condition…
I agree wholeheartedly that the biggest and increasingly threatening risks facing most reasonable and rational people are inequality, opportunity and freedom of expression. The counters to them all involve fighting neoliberal economic ideology and ignorance.
But don’t look exclusively for your opponents on the political Right; while easy to spot at that end of the political spectrum, they nevertheless exist just as damagingly at ‘our’ end too. It’s why the old Left/Right paradigm is useless now. Think Up/Down to accurately spot your targets.
I accept your point
critical thinking by scientists, academics and healthy diverse blogs such as yours are of paramount importance.
That we should all toe the line and follow guidelines is not the function of people.
That we should share, care, educate, encourage profound thinking, is our function.
Healthy scepticism, offer your alternatives, it is a mountain to climb. The damnable fracking is not going away without vociferous people.
And I want more pollinators in my garden, they are much reduced. And yes I blame this on government also, but that’s another story.
I fear pollinators are not within my control
But as a gardener I agree
“One reason will become apparent this week”
What a tease!
Go on spill the beans, what are you up to now?
You can wait
On paying for access – most of us do already through our subscriptions to broadband and mobile network providers. They benefit from the content you and others provide but presumably pass nothing on. Maybe something like the Public Lending Rights system for library book authors could work (https://www.plr.uk.com/).
And some authors working for universities etc may have the cost covered by their institutions, or have sufficient other means to do it without further remuneration. But we’re flooded with so much content that’s (as the NHS should be) free at the point of use, but supported by corporate advertising, which massively circumscribes their freedom of expression (see for example, several Medialens articles – http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/search-the-archive.html?searchword=advertising&searchphrase=all). Fact is, one way or another, content authors have the same life needs as anyone else, and need some way to cover these and their overheads.
Then there is the question of what content is actually allowed on the internet in a way we can find it, (not just under the law, but under the hosting companies’ declared or secret procedures). Maybe can express yourself on the dark web, but to whom? The French authorities raided Google’s Paris offices in their investigations into the corporation’s tax affairs – yet we still expect Google searches to bring us all points of view on related subjects. They could presumably apply their own censorship, or even close some of their service to individual or groups of users or countries in a stand-off.
The National Secular Society has drawn attention to several of the major social media providers signing up to the EU’s clampdown on hate-speech. There are issues here around how hate speech is defined, and who is actually doing the day-to-day enforcement. http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/06/european-commission-announces-online-crackdown-on-hate-speech
And finally there is the proposed ban on state funded researchers lobbying against government policy – have there been new developments on that? (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-forced-to-back-down-on-plan-to-gag-academics-and-scientists-a6991506.html)
So I agree there’s a lot to be concerned about. And fear of having to pay is just a small part of the picture. Remember the whole public internet as we see it is ultimately a US state enterprise – many would prefer to see its regulation come under an international organisation such as the United Nations.
Frank
Hi, contributing on the information specialist front here. People may be interested to read this report on the curation of information for policymakers. How do they know? The availability and management of open data is hugely important here and will become more so…
https://www.newamerica.org/oti/policy-papers/how-do-they-know/
I am also a gardener; it has taught me a great deal about the nature of systems and structures … we need a huge shift in the way we ‘understand’ the information ecosystem.
Isn’t one of the dangers that all the internet cables to Europe start in the US? In February, it was announced that:
‘Brazil is constructing a dedicated underwater cable to link the southern American country’s internet directly with Europe and avoid any espionage attempts by the US. The structure, which is estimated to cost up to $250m (£180m), will come into operation in late 2017 and is likely to be supported by tech giants Google and Facebook.’
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brazils-250m-underwater-cable-europe-may-be-supported-by-google-facebook-1545884
I don’t know how the coup against Dima Rouseff may affect that (or being paranoid, could it even be another reason for her being deposed) but it seems to me to be a very necessary step to dilute the US’s unique control over the internet. Part of Snowden’s revelations was the ease with which the NSA and GCHQ could tap into internet communications via those traffic carrying cables.
Syzygysue, you can be sure that Roussef’s impeachment has EVERYTHING to do with this attempt to circumvent US hegemony over information flows! Never forget that the West supported Gadaffi, until he planned to trade his oil in another currency that petrodollars, in luring the use of the Islamic gold dinar!
The relationship between the US Dollar, oil, finance and world trade is undoubtedly the cause of a large amount of the world’s economic and political problems.
The sooner there is an international unit of currency, separated from all national currencies and used as the basis for all international trade (as Keynes envisaged with Bancor and ICU), the better for the peaceful development of world trade and international relations in my opinion.
Firstly – I endorse the sentiments expressed above by Simon. Your blog, Richard, is a beacon of hope and light. It has always astounded me as to how you find the time not only to write it daily but also to engage with the comments so swiftly. Other commitments permitting, I hope you’ll be able to continue.
As regards the issue of the swing towards right-wing popularism, I suggest this happens when people feel their security is threatened beyond what they consider to be within their ‘control’. Fascism feeds on fear. The advocates of neo-liberalism understand this well and offer solutions that have an instant appeal to those sectors of the community that are most afraid. Risking Godwin’s Law, it’s what happened in the 1930s when there was so much unrest, threatening social stability. That’s why Immigration is proving to resonate increasingly for the Brexit campaigners than the Economy is for the Remain group.
Like you I fear these trends could develop into something much more sinister. There are no quick-fix solutions. Hitherto the progressive parties have largely been unsuccessful in articulating at a popular level both the growing dangers and feasible solutions. There has been no long-term co-ordinated strategy from the PLP. Only the Green Party here in the UK appears to have maintained any policy continuity which unfortunately has been drowned out by the MSM and our FPTP voting system.
These are worrying times and you are right to highlight the potential dangers. The ‘blogosphere’ has become an important tactical resource for getting alternative messages out to a wider audience. Its importance should not be underestimated. I like Sylvia’s use of the word ‘pollinator’. Staying with the gardening theme, every little helps in sowing seeds of hope and enlightenment. You never know where they will take root. The more people who understand There Is An Alternative, the less likely neo-fascist weeds will pollute and take over the fertile land (think I’ve exhausted the horticultural analogy!). As has been reitierated here many times, the enemy of economic, democratic and social progress is the Neo-liberal doctrine. It has to be discredited by whatever means available.
Your blog is important, Richard. It’s one of the many candles needed to lighten the darkness. Thank you, sincerely.
Thank you
Not only is Richard’s blog very important but so too are the many incredibly wise and useful comments, the one above from John D being a fabulous example.
To my mind, this recent TomDispatch essay resonates with much of what RM has said.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176149/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_renaming_our_world/
Anyone else see the similarities from both sides of ‘the pond’?
I was concerned when I read the headline on your post … I really appreciate your blog and it helps to
counter the ill informed MSM. Also I share your posts as much as possible where again they are appreciated. Thanks and keep blogging.
I love your blog, Richard, reading it is one of the highlights of my day. It is sustenance to my soul when I feel I am drowning in the cesspit of current mainstream political dogma. Whatever you are planning, I hope it will be more of the above, not less. Thank you!
I feel I lit a fuse of unnecessary speculation….
My view is that if the walls are indeed potentially closing in on online ‘dissent’, ‘heterodoxy’ or whatever we want to call the ‘alternative narrative of our times’ then this must mean that some one somewhere has been threatened by the fact that there are people with the courage, conviction and time to talk about it as such.
If true, then this blog and others have been a success and shown that there is another world out there that does not see things as Cameron and Osbourne intended.
I felt isolated until I came upon this blog by accident and I have been able to vent my feelings about these issues and find common ground as well as having my knowledge expanded. I found that I am not alone at all.
Long may it continue. If we get squeezed out off of the internet, then at least it was because we lived our lives here consciously – beholden only to our own standards, our curiosity (our ‘need to know deeply – to own that knowledge rather than have knowledge owned by others own us) and our humanity – our sense of others.
These things to me will provide a source of enduring spirit come what may. You may all have other motivators but it is not over yet.
BTW – I have also had to use an assumed name as I had indications that others had seen me here and that it could have consequences which made me feel very exposed to be honest. Hence my pseudonym.
I read a quote by Gramsci the other day Richard and it made me think instantaneously of you with a smile:
“I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will.”
― Antonio Gramsci, Gramsci’s Prison Letters
I felt that this reflected your willingness to confront the worst aspects of human society and to get them being talked about openly and then set about some of them with your vigorous campaigning.
Whatever you do next I do hope that it is as inclusive and that in some way – however tiny – I may have helped you to understand what is going on too.
PS: I contend that Godwin’s law does not exist. It is merely a refutation than we can learn from history; it is an invitation to forget and ‘sleep now in the fire’. Let us dispense with it here and now eh? Whilst we can.
I am with Gramsci, as you might expect
And you’re welcome here
Let our politicians shut down all dissent. It won’t go away, it will get bottled up and explode violently in due course, as it always has done and always will. They simply bring the guillotine, the girder, the lampposts, closer by their actions.
‘The Meissen Bison has managed three posts today with not a single piece of useful information to add to this debate in any of them.’
Of course he (she) may have made 20 other posts which added to the debate, but which RM doesn’t want to publish (as is his right)Maybe he(she) has commented on your multitude of posts but RM has not published them.
People shouldn’t really complain about others when you don’t know what has been edited out.
I deleted no other comments he or she posted, nor have they offered one for a long time
I do note you are turning up under a new name
GD/Meissen Bison – I believe it was you complaining about your right to waste Richard’s time and blog space, I was merely making an observation about the lack of intelligent and worthwhile debate in your contributions.
Moves to curtail internet freedoms may come from the most unlikely sources:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/05/26/the-web-they-want-how-a-twitter-wordsearch-justifies-internet-censorship/
The main reason I come regularly to this site is the high quality of the debate. Long may it continue.
Another reason I keep coming back is the way that dissenting voices are handled.
I gave up on the Guardian’s CommentisFree site after several years of relatively interesting debate, because the level of trolling was so out of control.
There is useful and positive criticism which must be valid on an site like this, but when people deliberately attempt to sabotage the effectiveness of the site for reasons best know to themselves, then the moderator has every right to ignore their messages.
This site is not the public square where everyone can shout their opinions; it is very much analogous to a private home, where the host has an open door, and reserves the right to deny hospitality to those who disrupt the party.
Anyone who has been around long enough on these types of forum can spot a troll a mile off, and even though they can be disingenuously clever, we are not fools. We have better things to do than waste our time being nice to them, and Richard has my full support in keeping them away from us.
A good example Helen of when “protectionism” can serve a better purpose than the “free market”
What you blog about or whether you blog at all has to be your personal decision, but as you ask for comments, please consider:-
1 Your voice on the attractions of such issues as freedom and equality and on the dangers that confront us in the event of their dimunition is but one of so many. Very blunt this, but you would not really be missed – and this from a fan, but one who is trying to be objective.
2. Your voice on the issues of taxation and the direction it has to take are both widely welcomed and widely condemned – i.e. by sheer merit and hard work you have become a major and increasingly influential player. Please, please, don’t ever give up on that. You are needed.
In short, your USP is your insight into, and knowledge of both what is, and what could be, in the world of tax.
Best wishes
Chris
I accept your point
Except for the fact that for me the issues are so intimately related I cannot unpack them
But I agree, I have more influence ion tax
Thanks
Richard
@richard – I genuinely don’t understand why you are less hopeful. The proof points for freedom of speech are clear to see. If not then we might as well all go home and bury our heads in the sand. If you believe there is counterpoint then surely you should be planning accordingly and enlisting resources to ensure those freedoms?
Den
We are under relentless attack on freedoms in the UK
There is opposition to what is happening but it is a decidedly minority sport – and much has to take place in the House of Loirds, absurdly
The big concern is that most people just do not care
And that is why I am pessimistic
The neoliberal drive to hegemony is relentless
Paradoxically
Richard
‘we might as well all go home and bury our heads in the sand.’ Den–but that is EXACTLY what has happened, which is why the situation is so dangerous. This ‘burying of heads’ has been accomplished by stealth. Richard has covered some of these points in blogs over the last few days:
1) The neo-liberal agenda encourages economic myths
2) We have politicians that are not up to the task of sustaining freedoms by genuinely informing the public of the ways they are being lied to
3) The media (with political conniving) encouragement of anti-intellectualism (think of Cameron/Osborne and the use of language like: ‘doing the right thing’/’Skivers-strivers etc) All this is anti-intellectualism at it’s most blatant.
4) People are stressed and don’t have the time or energy to get engaged because of the financial insecurity and housing pressures that keep them in the headless chicken mode.
5) The rise of dodgy popularism promoted by utterly callous shysters like Gove and Johnson.
This is dangerous stuff and it’s happening NOW
‘Those whom the gods wish to destroy get them hooked on celebrity TV.’
Den, just to add to Richard’s points, and particularly his last on the continuing ‘neoliberal drive to hegemony’ it is worth reading this.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jun/07/universities-higher-education-bill-award-degrees
As Richard and I are both academics, as are others who comment here, this Bill has a direct bearing on our future – and academic freedom (which is in any case subject to self censorship, precisely because of the neoliberal hegemony in English (UK?) universities), is clearly in the firing line. And the opportunity to do any research that doesn’t conform (support) the neoliberal project, which is already difficult, will also take a hefty knock.
So, the technologies and spaces might exist for free speech to continue. But those who participate in such a practice – particularly under their real names, as Richard and I and some others do on this blog – may well soon pay the price in other ways.
Have been following your blog for years now. I value your blog greatly. Please don’t start philosophising about what you’re doing. (Early signs of burn-out.)
Please keep on doing what your doing without heed to those reckless enough to air the immature thoughta that they know best – such people have lost the plot and I feel sure that their hubris will be accounted for.
(“Take control” – it is power and control that they lust for, at any cost, I suggest.)
Can you do better than keep on doing what you’re best at, what you have a gift for, what you are most experienced and skilful at?
I think not. But please do take real care of yourself first and foremost. I would appreciate that.
Best wishes,
RobinaB
One has to reflect sometimes
But I will keep going
And take the odd half hour off