Rogan and the responsibility of platforms

A wild spectacle for those of us watching from a distance. The recent Joe Rogan episode featuring Douglas Murray and Dave Smith continues to make shockwaves, and the discussions only seem to be escalating.

Plenty of people—including yours truly—felt the urge (or maybe the necessity) to chime in. But instead of bringing clarity to the conversation, the waters seem to have gotten murkier. I guess that should have been expected, but alas, somehow I’m still surprised.

Recently, another loud voice in the realm of Internet figures—Konstantin Kisin, who just so happens to be a comedian, I’m told—decided to throw his hat in the ring and push back on the idea of allowing anyone to say whatever they want. If I’m being fair to him—which I promise you, I’m trying—he’s arguing for balance. That is to say, don’t line up a roster of flat-earth conspiracies for weeks on end if you don’t want to be called irresponsible.

I think it’s a fair point. But of course, now he’s getting attacked.

The way I see it, there are two camps here—but only one, in my opinion, has legs. We have the free speech absolutists (that’s where I stand), and those who believe some regulation is necessary. The latter group sees this as a kind of civic duty—to prevent calamity. The fear is that if speech is entirely unrestricted, some bad actor is bound to wreak havoc.

Maybe I’m being naive, but it seems to me that every time speech gets restricted, the good old Streisand effect comes into play. But what do I know? I’m not a comedian. Nor have I been to war zones.

I’ll grant you—I’m being a tad ridiculous. But it's with good intentions. I’m just trying to hold up a mirror to anyone making these arguments and finding them sound.

I will, however, concede one point made by what I’d call my opposition. It is intriguing to see someone who claims to be neutral so laser-focused on platforming people with a specific narrative. Now, this isn't evidence of malfeasance per se—but the fish seems to be emitting a smell.

A man who, in my opinion, has the most clarity on this subject is Yuval Noah Harari. His position, while consistent with the idea of freedom, puts the burden of spreading misinformation on the platform owner—the one who actually controls the algorithms and their inner workings.

To put it plainly: Anyone should be free to say whatever they want. They should have the freedom to spout the most ridiculous ideas. The Earth is square. The sun isn’t real. The moon landing was CGI (yes, they apparently had CGI back then). But the algorithm—the digital force multiplier—should not, in the name of maximizing engagement, take those ideas and pour gasoline on them.

You see, the system of incentives is broken. Good information isn’t prioritized or selected for quality. It’s selected for the effect it has on the mob. A fake picture of Obama performing a dark ritual may not be true, but boy—it makes for a viral tweet. And that’s just business.

Regardless of all the infighting, there’s absolutely no way the cat is going back in the bag. In fact, things are only going to escalate. We’re producing more information every single day than we produced across all of human history prior to the modern era. Now isn’t that something?

Is there hope? I can almost hear you asking.

I want to say yes. Not because we’ll find oracles of truth among our ranks, but because we’re simply going through an adaptation process. In the near future—maybe not so far off—people will either become adept at consuming information... or they’ll fall behind in the game of life.

We’re living through a kind of informational revolution, driven by technologies we’ve yet to fully understand—let alone perfect. And just like with every other revolution, we’re feeling the pain of change.

MenO