Whatever you may think of either of these men, this interview is important and needs to be seen and understood. We certainly have our own misgivings about both of them. But the information in this interview is invaluable and contains both ideological and technical central truths. A couple of times I was tempted to stop listening when I heard things that where annoying. But continuing on one hears the mitigation for these annoyances. When Russell was not sure if Trump was banned from Twitter when he was president that felt like moving the muzzle so to speak. It was a critically important point that Twitter banned Trump when he was in fact president of the USA, and during an election. This all by itself is tantamount to election rigging. The Biden laptop is also discussed and the answers are worth hearing. The answers by Dorsey are informative, even when unsatisfying. Hearing Dorsey speak about Musk is very encouraging. Most certainly its critical to watch with eyes wide open and critical faculties on. Not Critical Theory, meaning simply to manufacture attacks on these men or the interview for the sake of it. Let’s leave that to the communists since that in essence is their one weapon to destroy reason and truth altogether. I mean critical faculties in the Socratic sense. Check for truth, and try and determine where an error is on their part or ours, and if theirs then is it a mistake or disinformation.
When Brand makes a condemnation of “hate speech” and then a half hearted defence of freedom of speech in that context, its a major red flag. To be extremely clear here, “hate speech” is the chief dialectical weapon against all liberty. It is essentially the same as Islamic blasphemy laws, but far more wide reaching and infinitely interpretable. The purpose of hate-speech regulations is to obliterate all individualism. To criminalize things that are TRUE but go against the accumulation of all power to and of the state. For brand not to know this is a problem. Either you believe in the right to speak your mind or you do not. And some speech will always be offensive to someone else. But truth can never be known if it isn’t an unfettered playing field. To demonstrate the dialectical nature of the concept, one needs look no farther than the many Nazi websites that seem to operate with impunity online. Or even the example given in the interview, that Trump was banned (while president and during an election campaign) but ISIS was not, or many other Islamic terrorist groups. At 58 minutes, Brand revisits the concept but in a somewhat ambiguous way, both condemning hate speech, but also seemingly condemning the use of it to silence people. He equates hate speech with child pornography in this case. It feels more like a naïve approach to the issue than one of controlled opposition. But either way be aware of it as you listen is good practice.
Even so, this is very worth watching and Dorsey is correct about what is needed and possibly about the past in that we may now be noticing what has always been in place because of decaying systems and we may have always been under far more control than we were aware of.