Political activism is not failing because people are too busy watching cat videos online, but because of a fundamental collapse of citizen leverage on institutions of power like governments and corporations.
Zeynep TufekciRead
You might be tempted to think that China has a Streisand-effect problem, in which trying to censor an event creates even more publicity. But that assumes the Chinese government doesn't understand the Streisand effect, and that can't be right, because if one government understands attention dynamics online, it's China's.
Interpretation
The quote highlights the Chinese government's awareness of the unintended consequences of censorship, particularly in the digital age.
Zeynep Tufekci's quote addresses the complex nature of censorship, using the example of the Streisand effect, which describes how attempts to suppress information can lead to greater public interest. It suggests that the Chinese government is not naive about how online attention works, implying that their actions are calculated and strategic rather than misguided attempts at control.
In practice
In a discussion on media control, this quote can illustrate the paradox of censorship.
Political activism is not failing because people are too busy watching cat videos online, but because of a fundamental collapse of citizen leverage on institutions of power like governments and corporations.
Given exponential growth dynamics of infectious diseases, containing an epidemic is straightforward early on, but nearly impossible once a disease spreads among a population.
Remember, the Internet did not create freedom of speech; in theory, we always had freedom of speech - it's just that it often went along with the freedom to be ignored. People had no access to the infrastructure to be heard.
Attention, to a terrorist group, is often what the well-meaning, outraged response is to your two-bit Internet troll: it is the food that feeds them.
Much of what ails our modern life is exactly because we reduce the value of a human being to a number, say salary or consumer power.
A 'fair' fight between non-equals is not fair, and being blind to power is an implicit endorsement of the powerful.
I think it is important to ask ourselves as citizens, not as Democrats attacking the administration, but as citizens, whether a world power can really provide global leadership on the basis of fear and anxiety?
Appeasement does not work. As was the case in the 1930s, we see in Saddam Hussein an aggressive dictator threatening his neighbors.
Once upon a time my political opponents honored me as possessing the fabulous intellectual and economic power by which I created a worldwide depression all by myself.
The practice of politics in the East may be defined by one word: dissimulation.
One vote. That's a big weapon you have there, Mister. In 1948, just one additional vote in each precinct would have elected Dewey. In 1960, one vote in each precinct in Illinois would have elected Nixon. One vote.
We need to get beyond the politics of the moment, the deficit of the hour, the military count of the day, the numbers that rarely shape events. Our long-term interests must be in people and in the values of democracy and individual liberty.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.