Knock It Off!

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Vocal now has an official policy (complete version found here) censoring so called “conspiracy theories and misinformation”. Here’s an excerpt:

"Category 2" conspiracy theories are topics that, essentially, can be linked to real-world danger and violence. This is content that is dangerously detached from reality to the point that it puts human lives at stake [emphasis original], either in the form of being a catalyst to violent societal upheavals, or by putting individual lives in harm's way by denying science and scientific evidence.

The article goes on to state some things that are considered “Category 2 conspiracy theories”. Among those listed are: the Plandemic, Flat Earth, and, most egregiously, the allegations of fraud in the 2020 election.

What this policy means is, if a creator were to write something along the lines of, say, “The pandemic isn’t quite so bad as the media is hyping it”, or “The Earth is flat”, or even “There were some substantial errors in the 2020 election”, their content on these subjects WOULD NOT BE POSTED! Never mind that Vocal has said: “Remember: as long as you have a voice, Vocal will give you a microphone.” Never mind that allowing articles saying these types of things wouldn’t end with society collapsing. Oh, and never mind that there are a huge number of articles on Vocal that already condemn censorship in it’s various forms.

There are tons of problems with this new policy and I’ll outline a few of them below:

1. A large part of the problem is the amount of interpretation that can be taken with this policy. Take the last phrase, for example: "Putting individual lives in harm's way by denying science and scientific evidence" is extremely subjective. Such a dis-qualifier could be applied to, well, just about anything depending on one's opinion. On most controversial subjects (global warming, vaccines, masks, evolution, etc.) there are always scientists that will take opposing sides of the issue, and claim that they are right and have scientific evidence to prove it. It does not matter how many support the opposite side, this still just about always happens. It could also, usually, be construed that the other side, by denying their position, could put lives at risk.

2. Another problem is that there would be a great hue and cry if this policy were flipped. Imagine with me for a moment a parallel universe's version of Vocal. Still a platform, still free to join, still pays Creators; but with a twist. Its 100% conservative. Instead of supporting the BLM they support the police. Instead of donating to the Black Artists + Designers Guild they donate to the NRA. And so on and so forth. However, one day, they decide that they never want to see a rioter post something inflammatory on the site. As a result they make a policy just like Vocal’s current one, with one exception: the examples. Instead of the Plandemic they have anything supportive of masks. Instead of 2020 election fraud they have 2016 election fraud. And so on and so forth. The point I’m trying to make is that people would be crying bloody murder the second this policy was made known (in our universe at least), but the mirror policy here is meekly accepted.

3. Here’s another problem: some of the things censored aren’t violent! Flat Earth? According to my research, peaceful. Plandemic? As far as I know, peaceful. 2020 election fraud? Mostly peaceful. Five people died at the so-called “riot” (AKA "insurrection"). One died of a heart attack, one after a stroke, one was shot by police, one was a police officer, and the other was supposedly crushed by the crowd. These are from the New York Times. I use the term “mostly peaceful” because I watched live coverage of the events (from CBS only). While I’m sure there was some violence, nearly all of what I saw was peaceful. Most of what I saw was a lot of people just standing there and talking. If it was violent there would be torches, pitchforks, and arson. Not just waving flags and chatting.

4. The last argument that I’ll mention is simply echoing the beginning quote by John Stuart Mill. What Vocal is doing is creating unchallenged dogma. What is happening is Vocal declares something to be false and will not allow dissension about that point of view. Even if only one creator held that view Vocal is no more justified in censoring them than they would be in hacking Vocal and getting rid of every liberal article. In that same vein what if Vocal ends up censoring, not only "misinformation", but truth? It was a radical conspiracy at the beginning of the Pandemic to say that COVID originated in a lab, but it is now a widely held belief. Are we willing to take the risk that this policy might be stopping people from changing their opinion and learning? Obviously, Vocal’s policy alone would not do this, but a whole lot of companies are doing this same thing and, taken together, these policies represent a serious threat to free speech. This policy is robbing the human race itself, at the very least of the opportunity to listen.

Vocal's censorship of others political opinions just because the moderators think they are wrong is reprehensible! A far better solution than censoring these opinions would be to say something along the lines of: "The views presented in this article do not reflect the views of Vocal or the Vocal Moderators and should be taken with a dose of salt" at the beginning of these types of articles.

If you agree with what I’ve laid out, please like this article or comment so I know at least one person agrees. You don't necessarily have to agree with things that were listed as banned to disagree with this policy. You merely have to believe that political censorship is wrong! Also, contact Vocal and tell them what you think. We may be able to stop this policy, but not if we don't speak out!