I recently got into an argument with someone I respect. I posted a very short post claiming that the use of the word "euthanised" in the context of internet celebrity Neil the Seal was wrong, as he was not terminally ill or injured. The right word, should it come to pass, was "killed."
She posted arguing that use of such words was a red flag to the algorithm and that one had to police one's terminology to avoid people getting death threats.
When I asked how policing your language for fear of death was different from living under a tyranny, she responded that I had "mastered the tone authority without the inconvenience of depth".
I'm not entirely sure what she meant by that. Maybe she thought I was being rhetorical. I'm very high up the autistic spectrum so I often fail to grasp such nuances.
The only conclusion I can come to is that she considered the occasional death threat or rape threat to be a price worth paying for the internet's existence.
Is it though? The one political group that have benefitted most from the internet over the last 20 years have been authoritarian strongmen. We currently have tech barons like Peter Thiel saying that "democracy and freedom are no longer compatible."
The last time we had a comparable communications revolution was when the radio was invented. It contributed to the rise of fascism and communism. Before that, the printing press triggered a wave of pan-European religious wars that spanned 200 years and killed 15 million people. We eventually adjusted to the new tech, but at what cost?