RAW restricted

‘Nobody can successfully censor the Infobahn.’ – RAW, Trajectories #14, 1995

‘The only way Internet can ever be effectively censored is by a world government‘ – RAW, lecture 2000

---

Robert Anton Wilson’s remarks on “censorship” featured in my earlier post – but the issue has since surfaced on various RAW forums, and doesn’t look like disappearing. So, another view, with an eye to what Bob W. wrote in context…

Context seems important because freedom/censorship “meanings” (definitions, connotations, etc) shift with it. Donald Trump, for example, uses “freedom of Speech” as a basis for his legal defense, in a way that confuses “speech acts” with expressing a view. (See Framelab on J.L. Austin’s “speech act” theory wrt Trump).

Different contexts have arrived, also, with “AI”. Some platforms argue that their algorithms’ content recommendations count as protected speech. Others see these algorithms as unprecedented “behaviour modification” and “addiction” technology that needs regulating with safety laws. Several folks warn of third-party military grade “psyops” utilizing (or exploiting) this new technology for private political agendas. Many people equate (conflate?) content moderation by privately owned platforms with censorship. And AI-generated content brings further tricky “free speech” distinctions – and anxieties – to the global utopia-or-oblivion party.

With all that in mind, here’s a clear “general” formulation of censorship from RAW, in an earlier era:

‘Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is blockage of this process at any point. Bigotry, ideologies etc. block the ability to receive; robotic reality-tunnels block the ability to decode or integrate new signals; censorship blocks transmission.’ – Robert Anton Wilson, Prometheus Rising

So, censorship blocks transmission. But stupidity includes other kinds of blockage. Got that?

A concocted crisis?

‘The whole government has become armed assistants to the Christian clergy… The First Amendment did not intend to establish a Christian Tyranny… to enforce the morality of the most narrow-minded hypocrites among us.’ – RAW, Trajectories #18

As I hopefully showed in my earlier post, the majority of RAW’s comments on censorship referred either to a “conservative” (or “puritanical”) type prominent at the time he wrote (eg “moral” censoring of “obscene” material, including language), or to the practical near-impossibility of enforcing censorship on Internet (if you block a signal, it quickly re-routes).

A similar point to RAW’s was made by William Davies, author of Nervous States, in a long Guardian article, ‘The free speech panic: how the right concocted a crisis’:

‘The proliferation of platforms that grant anyone a public voice should, in principle, have put concerns about censorship to rest. After all, even very bad writers with offensive opinions can now see their words published… By any measure, speech is less regulated or inhibited than ever before.’ – William Davies, The Guardian, July 2018

I recommend a read of Davies’ article. He argues that the current “conservative” obsession with censorship and “free speech” arises from a demographic crisis for UK and US conservatives. For example, the Thatcher-Reagan era values of hard work, enterprise, family values and patriotism sound hollow and empty to many young people struggling with debt and facing a precarious future. “Free speech” at least doesn’t trigger the cynicism attached to the notion of “free market” in an age of extreme inequality. A censorious “Deep State”, “woke liberals”, etc, provide New Enemies, taking the roles previously held by the nanny state, welfare scroungers and PC lefties (in the UK) and Washington DC bureaucracy and unamerican pinkos and commies, etc (in the US).

Davies also makes the point (also made by RAW*) that censorship – or the allegation of it, true or not – has the paradoxical function of attracting attention to the supposedly censored issue. This function often gets turbocharged in the online attention economy, leading to big payoffs for “censorship” outcries (in views, followers, subscribers, general screen dominance, etc). It also tends to ensure that an issue gets framed in a certain way, obscuring other problems (relevant with the emergence of AI-driven media and its unpredictable social/political effects – “different territories may need different maps”, to gratuitously quote RAW). Meanwhile, the genuinely censored people remain invisible, unheard of, perhaps in jail or fleeing a war zone, somewhere unconnected – not featuring in a Russell Brand podcast.

(* I can’t remember the tape to give you the exact quote, but Bob W. mentions a poem that has a line telling readers to “Turn off Seinfeld!”, and he comments that he’d never watched Seinfeld at that point, but started watching it out of curiosity because of the poem’s ‘order’ not to – and he ended up liking it. RAW also points out that the burning of Wilhelm Reich’s books “aroused curiosity about Reich”.)

‘One result of all such Inquisitorial behavior, which Inquisitors never seem to expect even though it is historically predictable, is that some people get curious about books they are forbidden to read. I spent a lot of time, in 1957-58, hunting for people who owned copies of Dr. Reich’s books and doing exactly what the Inquisitors had wished to prevent me from doing – reading the verboten books…’

RAW, Wilhelm Reich in Hell, intro

Celebrity “free speech”

Those who profit most from the “censorship conspiracy” scaremongering – online celebrity “free speech” advocates – apparently attract others with their success. Ultra-conservative former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss looks like being the latest to join the bandwagon – as I write, she’s joined Steve Bannon’s platform, reduced to blaming her failures on the UK “Deep State”, to widespread ridicule and jeering in Britain. (Incidentally, a few years ago, Bannon apparently let the cat out the bag by saying “deep state conspiracy theory is for nut cases”. But then Bannon has also said Trump is an “instrument of the living God”, and that those whose oppose him “are” “demonic”. “Flooding the zone with shit” doesn’t begin to cover it).

‘Nobody is benefiting more from the free speech panic, both reputationally and financially, than these free speech warriors. In the process, the very idea of free speech is being strategically reconfigured, even weaponised, to help push content virally towards online audiences.’ – William Davies, The Guardian, July 2018

“Censorship” & category agnosticism

‘In keeping with my non-Aristotelian or relativist-Existentialist bias, I do not classify ideas as simply “true” or “false.” I prefer to assign them probabilities, on a scale from 0 (the Aristotelian “false”) to 10 (the Aristotelian “true”)’ – RAW, intro to Wilhelm Reich in Hell

Back in the pre-internet days of the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC), censorship seemed a clear-cut either/or issue. A film got banned under law because of its “extreme” violence, sex, etc (in the view of the BBFC). You could consider a film as either censored or uncensored. The public had no lawful access to censored films.

These days – in the USA – it appears that the Republican, MAGA, QAnon, etc, “right” complain loudest about “censorship”. But it looks like a different kind of “censorship” than the straightforward BBFC (or Florida school book banning) kind; and the panic around it looks like getting pushed hard in US politics – from where I’m sitting at least. Much of it focuses on alleged online “censorship” (or platform suspension, content moderation, suboptimal ranking, “shadow banning”, or some other perceived “bias” or interference, etc) – of a type that can’t easily be classed in the above either/or way.

I suggest category agnosticism in such cases. To adopt RAW’s 0-10 scale, we rate the pertinence (or appropriateness/fit) of the “censorship” label for a given case. A definite category “fit” scores 10. “Nothing to do with censorship versus free speech” scores 0.

Note the subtle difference between category agnosticism and model agnosticism. In the latter we use non-binary logic to question “models” (propositions, constructs, beliefs, etc). In the former we apply Maybe Logic to our categories, labels, classifications, etc.

‘I admit cheerfully that I am such an advanced case of Aggravated Agnosticism that whenever I do move something into 0 or 10, I get nervous, wonder if I am becoming as simple-minded as the Pope or Dr. Carl Sagan…’ – RAW, intro to Wilhelm Reich in Hell

If it seems a stretch to apply category agnosticism to “censorship” – particularly when Authoritative Experts like Tucker Carlson and his guests^† insist on asserting the “censorship” label unequivocally to a multitude of issues – then at least consider the new media contexts, and re-read RAW’s remarks on the “unenforceability” of censorship on the Net (several quoted in my earlier post).

^†Carlson presented his recent guest Mike Benz as “the expert, in the world” on censorship. Benz, formerly hired by Trump for a few months at the US State Department, but inaccurately described on Joe Rogan’s show as “head of cyber”, anonymously ran a social media account called “Frame Game” that posted racist conspiracy theories and “Great Replacement Theory” material. Benz seems totally convinced by some conspiracy theories that I regard as the “far-right headcase” variety, as well as pushing the “Censorship Industrial Complex” theory as if a proven certainty.

50 Shades of “Censorship”?

Taking Wilson’s insights and “exercises” seriously (as I always do), try applying this simplified “multiple choice test” to the examples of supposed “censorship” compiled below. The third option (3) should be taken to include any of the possibilities that RAW posited outside the binary logic (eg 1-9 in his 0-10 scale, including 1-9 in the category agnosticism scale for “censorship”):

(1) Definitely censorship
(2) Definitely not censorship
(3) WTF! Can I think about it?

(Examples)

1. “Shadow banning”. I hear this phrase often – the words imply a sinister form of censorship. Here’s a presumably minor example (from Xitter):

This was the only reply. It contains nothing offensive, but it got hidden. (The hidden tweet has a link to then US Democratic Party candidate Marianne Williamson – does this seem relevant? And would some folks cry “censorship” if RFK Jr got “shadow-banned” in this way?).

2. Talking of “shadow banning”, the censorship campaigner Matt Taibbi recently claimed of being “suppressed” on Xitter. He had a text conversation with Elon Musk, which begins: “Elon, am I being shadowbanned?”. Musk replied: “Looks like there is still a blanket search ban. Should be fixed by tomorrow.”

A “search ban” (ostensibly for commercial reasons)? How does that fit our “censorship” categories? Incidentally, Taibbi responded, “Elon, I’ve repeatedly declined to criticize you”. Most of us probably self-censor to a degree, but censoring your own journalistic output to pander to a multi-billionaire?

3. Censored or censured? In RAW’s intro to ‘Wilhelm Reich in Hell‘, in addition to the censorship (book banning/burning) of Reich’s work, Wilson mentions the treatment of “Velikovsky, astrology, Dr Leary” by what he calls “The New Inquisition”. How would you categorise (“censorship”, or not, or what?) those latter examples – eg the treatment of astrology by some scientists? This requires a bit of research.

4. In a recent Hilaritas podcast, RAW’s longtime friend and collaborator Scott Apel remarked on how the Trajectories journal enabled writing without censorship. I’m not sure of the extent of censorship that Bob Wilson might have endured from external publishers – I can’t imagine that, say, Falcon Press, or the magazines he wrote for, significantly censored his work, given their intent to publish his ideas.

Still, it happens. Two decades ago, the Guardian newspaper published a series of my short columns, and altered the text without informing me – but I didn’t see this as “censorship” (I thought of it, ironically, as editors “taking liberties”). A similar thing happened later with the UK’s Independent newspaper, although they notified me in advance (that they wouldn’t publish my article without some deletions they required). Irritating, but I know it happens to a lot of writers, and I didn’t see it as censorship. Glenn Greenwald thought differently when he faced editorial intervention from The Intercept – he shouted “censorship” from the rooftops. His former Intercept colleague, Jeremy Scahill, disagreed. How would you categorise editorial intervention of this kind?

5. In Trajectories #14 (1995), RAW published a few of his letters that addressed sexism and bigotry. He originally sent them to the San Jose Mercury News, which for some reason, rejected them – he doesn’t offer an opinion as to why. Self-publishing, of course, gets over that problem – you don’t have to deal with the interventions (including rejection) of editors with different views to yours. But, returning to our categories, can we be sure this case definitely doesn’t constitute censorship?

6. “They banned Dolly Parton”? A US school district reportedly banned Dolly Parton’s song ‘Rainbowland’ because it “could be deemed controversial”. This follows other reported cases of US schools “removing rainbow imagery”.

7. “Now they are coming after Substack” (♪♪…rising organ music…♪♪). A few persistent folks posting to RAW Facebook seem to like this sort of messaging. The post in question warns that “one of the last domains of free speech”, Substack, has come under attack by the “Big Brother” censors. (The alleged “censors” in this case? Substack users who expressed a complaint about Nazis to Substack). It links to an Atlantic article by Jonathan Katz, titled ‘Substack Has a Nazi Problem’. Would you categorise Katz’s article, or the people who complained to Substack about Nazis, as part of an Orwellian “censorship” conspiracy?

8. Russia plans to seize property of dissenters, according to this report (which needs translating – see Index on Censorship post). Well, it could be worse – they could demonetize your Youtube account for breaching its terms & conditions.

9. Bill Maher’s treatment of Kanye West. I came across the link to this story at RAWIllumination.net. It’s an interview with Bill Maher by ‘Reason’ magazine.

Bill Maher axed a show with Kanye West, and Reason’s Matt Welch asked (with levity, I assume) if Maher was “suppressing” Kanye. Maher explains he didn’t want to give “oxygen” to Kanye’s antisemitism (and he wanted to avoid getting himself “cancelled”).

I didn’t see any major headlines such as “BILL MAHER CENSORS KANYE” over this, but the terms “suppress”, “censor”, “de-platform”, “cancel”, etc, presumably could’ve been applied, given the broadness of their current use – and perhaps would’ve if, say, Netflix, had axed Kanye. Maher gets away with the “not giving oxygen to” explanation. How does this fit your categories? Did Maher censor?

10. ‘Reason’ magazine, it should be said, has a political/financial horse in the race. In the same interview with Bill Maher, it appears that “the Biden administration” (or rather US government agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services) only need approach social media companies about risks of viral Covid misinformation (or flag what they see as harmful content, etc) to be accused by Reason’s Matt Welch of “actual censorship”. In the current US political circus, many commentators apparently see “censorship” in almost any government communication with media platforms, regardless of whether actual blocking of speech (RAW’s definition of censorship – see above) occurs.

How would you categorise a situation in which a government spokesperson requests that a platform looks into removing some content (possibly for a legitimate reason) – but without compelling the platform to do anything? Definite “actual censorship” in all such cases?

11. If, after a situation such as the above (see 10), a Trump-appointed judge rules that the government cannot even approach (ie communicate with) a social media platform, does this constitute a form of censorship in itself, given that the judge’s injunction blocks communication (including important kinds, eg warnings about viral deep fakes on the eve of an election)? Something like this has in fact happened – the Trump-appointed judge in question, Terry Doughty, cited Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” dystopias in his reasoning, and has apparently swallowed the “Deep State Censorship Conspiracy” hysteria wholescale. The Guardian reports that his injunction even “prohibits government agencies from collaborating with” academic researchers into election disinformation. A New York Times article, from a professor of law specialising on platforms and online speech, also puts it in stark terms:

‘The injunction seems to prevent anyone in the Biden administration from having any kind of communication with online platforms about matters related to speech.’ – New York Times, opinion piece, July 13, 2023

Heavy-handed censorship with the (dubious, politically motivated?) rationale of preventing censorship? Does this injunction “suppress the speech of federal government officials under the guise of protecting the speech rights of others”, as some administration lawyers put it?

12. Joe Rogan, Matt Taibbi, and others, made a big deal of Facebook’s intervention after the FBI warned them (Facebook) of an imminent coordinated “dump” of material (alleged election interference by bad/foreign actors). Rogan frames this Facebook intervention as “censorship”, and Mark Zuckerberg, in direct reply to Rogan, echoes that framing. But Zuckerberg also states that no speech/content suppression by Facebook resulted – people were allowed to share the information which constituted the “dump”. Facebook just temporarily lowered the newsfeed ranking on it, so it wouldn’t go viral as swiftly as it might otherwise have done (while they checked its sources, legitimacy, etc).

How would you categorise this, assuming Zuck didn’t lie to Rogan? If relative de-ranking doesn’t mean blocking transmission, then how does it meet the basic definition of “censorship” (from RAW’s quote, above)? To give a marketing analogy: a publisher puts a promotional campaign for a book on hold after it’s alleged that the book contains dangerously false/libelous material. Has the publisher “censored” the author by not promoting the book?

Incidentally, I neither like nor support Facebook. In particular, I don’t like the way it enables, for profit, high bidders and bad actors to shape the public framing wars with viral content. Remember BUMMER: “Behaviours of Users Modified, and Made into an Empire for Rent”?

‘Bummer platforms have proudly reported on experimenting with making people sad, changing voter turnout, and reinforcing brand loyalty. Indeed, these are some of the best-known examples of research that were revealed in the formative days of Bummer.’ – Jaron Lanier, The Guardian, May 2018

Also:

‘The mass behaviour modification machine is rented out to make money. The manipulations are not perfect, but they are powerful enough that it becomes suicidal for brands, politicians, and other competitive entities to forgo payments to Bummer enterprises. Universal cognitive blackmail ensues…’ – Jaron Lanier, The Guardian, May 2018

My advice here, for what it’s worth? Don’t let the political noise over “censorship” obscure the debate over the algorithmic “cognitive/behaviour modification” issue. Or rather, don’t limit your thinking about platform controversies to a simplistic dichotomy of “free speech vs censorship”.

13. My favourite example of what some UK commentators label as “cancel culture” or “censorship” would be Liverpool’s long-running campaign to encourage people not to buy The Sun “newspaper”. By “Liverpool”, I refer to the people of the city, not some top-down governmental ban. It has been a remarkably successful (and widely popular) campaign – even corporate chain stores typically respect local feelings by not stocking the godawful Murdoch rag. (Quite an achievement when most newsagents, supermarkets, petrol stations, etc, in Britain prominently display The Sun – the most widely read “newspaper” in the country).

I don’t see anyone’s freedom or free speech blocked or curtailed by this – beyond the usual local social “pressures” that typically influence our behaviour, including the occasional angry or amused reaction. If you want to sell or advertise The Sun on the streets of Liverpool, you’re free to try it, I guess. I fully support #Don’tBuyTheSun, but I may exhibit bias here, as I have close personal ties with Liverpool.

Quantity of uncertainty

‘Only the madman is absolutely sure.’ – RAW, Masks of the Illuminati

‘One should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.’ – Bertrand Russell, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

I hope, at this point, that readers might be leaning towards an uncertain, questioning state of mind over the category of “censorship” (and its synonyms) as applied to some new online media issues. Whenever I’ve questioned that category for a given example, I often get the reply that with so many such examples, you can’t rule it out – that the “Censorship Industrial Complex” or “coordinated Deep State suppression”, or whatever, must be true. To which my response (usually unvoiced) would be that a great many similarly questionable or feeble examples don’t add up to a strong case for a remarkable claim (eg fungible government censorship conspiracy). They do add up to an abundance of uncertainty – which could be a good starting point.

‘[H]eroes of the resistance; tenders of mercy to a suffering, puritanical society. They will be remembered like the heroes of medicine and science who fought against the Catholic Inquisition.’ – RAW’s dedication of Trajectories #18 to prostitutes, pornographers and pot dealers

---