Winston Churchill in his book "The Second World War" describes the following episode: before the start of this very war, in May 1935, French Foreign Minister Pierre Laval discussed Soviet-French relations with Stalin.
“Could you encourage the spread of religion and Catholicism in Russia?
- asked Pierre Laval.
"It would help me so much with the Pope."
"Wow!
Dad!
- Stalin answered.
"And how many divisions does he have?"
In his tarpaulin wit, Joseph Vissarionovich is endlessly outdated.
Today, a person who is adequate to the current time should ask: "How many subscribers does the Pope have?"
Or even like this: "How many data centers does it have?"
Since our being now determines consciousness.
Our consciousness is now determined by likes.
And, of course, user agreements.
They, along with the "community rules" - we now have a Constitution.
For example, Google announced that it will no longer be possible to monetize content on its sites that denies the anthropogenic theory of climate change.
It will not be possible to advertise materials that climate theory is a fraud.
It cannot be denied that there is no global warming.
Most importantly, it cannot be denied that greenhouse emissions and human activities are accelerating climate change.
Agree that it is formulated filigree.
Because there are climatic changes (let the blind see), and human activity certainly accelerates these processes.
But, as they say, "at the numerous requests of citizens" (this is how Google explains its decision), a whole sector of scientific discussion is being curtailed.
Oh yes, this is not a scientific discussion!
Exactly.
I forgot.
A scholarly debate is a discussion in peer-reviewed scientific journals about whether penguins fall on their backs when they raise their heads to look at planes flying by.
Or about whether an excess of free time affects a person's well-being.
Of course, all these questions are also extremely interesting.
But cognition is when the city madman, at whom everyone laughs, continues to stand his ground.
And one day he proves that he is right.
Medieval society denied such an urban madman his standing on his own. Alas, modern society also refuses. It is impossible to discuss the questions of why exactly global climate changes are occurring. Well, that is, it is still possible to discuss, but not to advertise. But since the heavy tread of progress is unstoppable, then it will inevitably be impossible even to discuss (that is, to publish). And then an attempt at such discussions will become a criminal offense.
And in all this, mind you, the states and IT giants (which have long been meta states) are not to blame.
Citizens and subscribers are to blame for this.
Who feel insulted.
Jews feel offended when someone questions their national catastrophe.
A Russian patriot feels offended when someone questions the heroism of a Russian soldier during a war (almost 100 years ago, by the way).
A feminist feels offended when the well-known model "a man feeds a woman, a woman gives birth to children" is mathematically proven in a scientific journal.
And seeks to remove the article from the scientific mathematical journal!
I'm not even talking about the feelings of believers.
Although I personally have always thought that faith is stronger than any feelings.
And a true believer cannot be offended by showing him a movie about the tsar's romance with a ballerina.
In general, the problem has been formulated, and now it would be good to think about how we could get out of all this ... however, no, we will not be able to get out of all this.
The crowd that has been given the right to vote will use that voice to the fullest.
And here I have bad news for V.Yu.
Surkov and V.V.
Zhirinovsky, who almost simultaneously told us that parliamentary democracy is withering away because representatives are no longer needed.
Because direct digital democracy is now possible.
And every citizen will be able to directly point out to us their aspirations and desires.
Yes, parliamentary democracy is really withering away.
But not because representatives are no longer needed.
And because they have discredited themselves and are no longer representatives.
Anywhere in the world.
But direct democracy is also impossible.
Direct democracy will result in the refusal of vaccinations, bans on discussing anything, lists of banned musicians (already at the ready) and, of course, the death penalty.
Therefore, my personal choice is this: it would be better to have well-fed representatives and flexing IT giants who trade my personal data than the absolute freedom of self-expression of those who are against any freedom.
Okay, I will not discuss the Holocaust (especially since there is nothing to discuss).
I will not doubt the anthropogenic theory of global climate change.
I will forget about Poland.
To hell with you, I even agree that the Earth is round (but how can I not agree with this?).
Yes, and I did the vaccine.
But just let the public stay in the stall.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.