France Censors Free Speech Platform Rumble

The Information Wars Part XXII

Find out more about the Information Wars here.

A moment ago, an RTE reader notified me that they cannot view our videos on Rumble. 

Why? Because the French government says so, that's why. I checked, and multiple sources report that this is the case.

More like the French government says "No" to unapproved thoughts. From the article,

Pavlovski and Rumble being transparent and making the demand from the French government public, raises a few questions.

Rumble said “no.” But who has said “yes”?

It would be highly unlikely that Rumble is the only tech platform the French government have contacted with their demands.  What did the other platform providers do?

How many other ‘western‘ governments make demands on content from Big Tech platform providers that we do not know about?

The issue of what France is demanding is essentially analogous to what the US government (“DHS”) has been doing within the censorship discussion recently highlighted by The Intercept.   However, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Google and Microsoft have not been open with the American people about these back-channel discussions and demands from the US government.

[Related: Governments clamp down on Politically “Dangerous” Speech & “Hate” Speech while Facebook’s AI which helps spread both can’t be fixed]

Rumbles' response, if I understand the phrase correctly, translates well to, "Suck it."

Chris Pavlovski @chrispavlovski

The French Government has demanded that Rumble (@rumblevideo) block Russian news sources. Like @elonmusk, I won't move our goal posts for any foreign government. Rumble will turn off France entirely (France isn't material to us) and we will challenge the legality of this demand.

Elon Musk @elonmusk

Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint. Sorry to be a free speech absolutist.

---

The Death Penalty - An Analogy

Don't try too think to hard about what my politics are for this section. I'm a somewhat libertarian independent, but I've long tried to think in terms of game theoretic outcomes.

When war is undertaken for a truly just reason, I believe that killing is justified. In fact, that's tautological. That's not to say that I think war is good. It's nearly always universally bad. But when somebody takes the fight to you, I don't blame you for examining the existential calculus for a solution.

During peacetime, I'm not a fan of the death penalty. That's not because I have some notion of thinking that everyone should live. There are men like Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gayce for whom something went so wrong in the development of a monster that they should not be allowed contact with people. Death might then be merciful.

The problem that I have with capital punishment is that I don't trust the state as an entity to adjudicate with such finality. Many people on death row are innocent, and the sorts of crimes that put people there often involve the most gaming of justice. I am personally aware of a man who falsely confessed to the murder of a close childhood friend of mine. Some are framed. Some people confess to crimes they didn't commit for any number of reasons. It's complicated, and history tells us that governments don't get it right—even in the land with the most well designed justice system in the world (not that it hasn't been hijacked).

We are living in an age where Free Speech is tantamount to life. In the coming years, millions will live or die according to the freedom of information, or lack thereof. That's what happens during tumultuous times. The Leviathan State should not have the authority to dictate speech. Any government that does marks itself as an enemy to humanity.