Up until now, I have regularly participated in a radio program in Germany (in German language) where participants are invited to ask questions about an author’s new book. The show is quite popular, and I find the programmers are being increasingly selective regarding the questions — not only is the censorship quite obviously becoming more and more idiosyncratic, but the setup is inherently asymmetric … such that authors and interviewers are given ample time to expound and advertise their own ideas, yet thirsty consumers are only allowed to submit short soundbites as merely shallow food for thought.
I believe I have pledged to quit submitting to this authoritarian scheme before, and yet yesterday I did it again. The case was so egregiously steeped in woke leitmotifs that to say it ruffled my feathers is an equally extreme understatement. Looking back, I now realize I should have known better.
Instead of wasting my time in such submissive exercises, I should simply express my own thoughts without paying attention to such “leading” censorship platforms.
This is of course one of the main reasons why I am so adamant about literacy skills — and in particular why I am so upset about the insufficient literacy skills of the vast majority of “online” participants.
The vast majority of online “users” feels that being able to find the ON / OFF switch is a license for “understanding” information. These masses have little or no idea whatsoever why they use irrational [1] censors like Google to “search” for propaganda and advertisements. They lack the literacy skills to realize that the reason they are shown advertising is not because such ads are adequate answers to their questions, but rather that there exist enough companies with enough money to pay Google a pretty penny to show these ads to Google’s so-called “users” [2] — who are actually better referred to simply as potential consumers of the advertisers’ products and services. [3]
This is not new information. [4]
Socio Business blog 