Instagram Wants to Limit News and Information

We are in an interesting time when much of what we digest in the way of "news and information," happens in a very different way than it did many decades ago when there were only a handful of networks, newspapers and radio stations to get it from, and all of them mostly came from centralized news organizations like the Associated Press ultimately.

In many ways, there was also much less bias presented in news. It was straightforward journalism that sought to get to the truth, even when the truth may be painful and even destroy political careers.

Perhaps news has never truly been completely reliable. But certainly, it was more reliable than it is today.

Beyond the 24-hour news cycle, of course, the advent of social media outlets also changed a lot of the way that we receive news and information. Discussions or opinions that would otherwise be relegated to the dinner table or other social gatherings, and perhaps the occasional "Letter to the Editor," now moved into more public territory. 

Social media is largely a place where everyone has an individual voice that they can share with masses of other people. 

But that's not what everyone wants, of course, and after Trump's reelection efforts in 2020, we saw a side of truth that doesn't want to be heard, and we saw freedom of speech come under fire. Social media outlets began shutting down anyone who said things the social media powers that be did not like, and even banned certain people from being heard at all.

Suddenly truth was not being determined or examined. It was simply being decided.

Sure, it doesn't mean that many can't still have a voice. Many people, such as myself, can still freely write and publish blogs or articles sharing my thoughts and opinions, or findings on particular topics I find interesting that I think others may also find interesting.

But the sites that I write on can be limited by the places where I can post the links, such as Facebook, X and elsewhere. That can have a limiting effect on who gets to see it, let alone find it.

When Elon Musk took over X, his aim was to put an end to that and allow a freer forum for people to express themselves. It can be hotly debated whether he has actually accomplished that. But the fact remains that social media is still pushing back on certain speech.

That can be shown in the recent decision by Instagram to limit political speech in particular. 

Regardless of whether or not news or information is better with so many voices in the pool of news and information is also debatable. Because not everyone is going to have the whole truth and nothing but the truth necessarily. 

Even when it comes to my own writing on various topics, it's my opinion and it is up to the reader to decide whether or not they agree with it. It's also up to the reader to seek out more information to better form their own opinions.

What social media and blogs and podcasts and whatever other media source is being used offers is another side. An alternative. I think that does, in fact, make things better. Because otherwise all you have is one centralized source who collectively decides what is true or not. 

That makes news and information potentially propaganda. Because one group can simply control the flow. 

The problem is not so much the limiting of news and information. It's the clear agenda behind it. Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most of social media and news outlets are slanted to the liberal side.

And you can't make an informed decision without hearing all sides. It is better to form an opinion based on multiple sources and perspectives than to rely only on one.

Especially when it comes to politics, I think it is important for people to be able to think openly and constructively. If we had a media now that were more prone to just tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, perhaps a decision like Instagram's would make more sense. 

But that's not the world we are living in. The truth can often times now be questioned. It is often shaped and configured rather than told as it is. People need to have the ability to hear all sides and decide for themselves. That's part of why freedom of speech is so important. Why it is necessary. 

And again, it doesn't mean that anyone else is absolutely going to preach the Gospel. People still must do their own homework. But the discussion is needed, and every voice should have an opportunity to at least be heard, even when we don't like what is said.

Instagram members can opt back into political content. But the first choice should be to be able to see and hear the content before a decision is made whether or not it should appear at all for the viewers. But again, it also puts control into the hands of a very select group of people to decide what we can see or hear. 

That is not a good thing. Every American, regardless of their political leanings should want every word to potentially be heard. Because when you begin to silence one speech, eventually speech you want and need to hear will also be silenced.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. 

SHOULD Business Leaders Be More Careful About Their Opinions?

Our freedom of speech is a very important thing, and something that I have never taken lightly. Part of what I do is to communicate my thoughts, and having the freedom to share them is paramount. Which brings me to revisiting some comments I made a couple of posts ago, wherein I suggested that "Business Leaders May Be Wise to Just Clam Up."

One of the guys I mentioned was one very vocal business leader, Elon Musk. I think it would be fair to say that a lot of the time he's in the news more for what he says than what his businesses do. And it's caused some problems for him as well as some of his shareholders.

Whether it's right or wrong, businesses take hits for things the CEO's and owners say. Either the customers respond, or shareholders do.

Take Anheuser-Busch, Bud Light, and the Dylan Mulvaney can, or the My Pillow guy.

As I alluded to in my other post, it's not always necessarily about which side your position happens to be on. Chick-Fil-A, for example, has strong opinions against abortion and gay marriage, as does Hobby Lobby. Their businesses have soared with support from a like-minded clientele who agree with their stance.

The point is that, even though these are businesses separate of people, they are still run by people. And the people who run them have just as much of a right to express themselves as the rest of us do.

Should exercising our rights cost us?

In my post I said that it often does, but also suggested maybe it shouldn't. That at the end of the day perhaps it would be better to simply say of any CEO, "Hey, I disagree with what he's saying, but I like the product and can respect his right to say what he wants."

What has led me to revisit this train of thought has been things Elon Musk has recently said. Things that resonate with me and cause me to rethink my own stance a little bit. 

I still think it is probably best, in this ever-heated world we live in when it comes to politics, to pipe it down as much as you can and keep the best interests of the business in mind. Because if the business is impacted, it hurts more people than just the one who holds a particular belief.

There are workers and shareholders at stake. They all have just as much invested in the business as the CEO's and owners do. At least in terms of the workers, it's their livelihoods on the line.

Take, for example, the other day as I was in the liquor aisle at my local grocery store. I drink Miller Lite because that's my beer of choice. But I have been hard on Anheuser-Busch for their Dylan Mulvaney can and have written several times saying that "we should bring the pain and let woke know what happens when you go there."

The Bud Light pain lives on, and rather than restocking the cold case, all that AB merchandiser could do was make note of what remained on the shelf that just won't sell. You have to think he wonders, if the boycott continues, what impact that could have on his job. And he may have the same opinion as the customers do. 

There is another thing to appreciate here, and I think it's a bit of a message—albeit coming from Elon Musk. Right now, although it fluctuates a bit, the richest man in the world. What does the left always say? What's their sell?

That the rich care only about one thing. The money.

Elon Musk is quite literally spitting in the face of that idea. And he's come right out and said it. He doesn't care. "I'll say what I want to say. If the consequence of that is losing money, so be it." 

What he is acknowledging is that there can be consequences from voicing certain opinions. People may foist their discontent and scorn on the businesses they are in charge of. That's the risk you take when you say something, especially things that may be controversial, or where there may be a deep division of opinion.

At the same time, he is also acknowledging that what he holds dearer than the money or the consequence of losing it, is his right to speak freely and openly. In other words, he is essentially saying he is not willing to give up himself and who he is just for the sake of making a buck.

That's profound when you think about it. Here is the richest man in the world saying that there are some things that are far more valuable, and far more important to hold onto, than money.

As much as I want to follow my own thoughts, that for the good of the business, business leaders simply clam up—his words lead me down a different path and a different train of thought. Should the objective of disagreeing with someone be to destroy them?

Moreover, isn't doing that a very dangerous path to go down? And is Elon Musk sort of alluding to that? Is his message partly to help people to understand it?

When you squash the freedoms of people to express themselves, you lose the value of who you are as a person. The world becomes shaped by a consensus rather than a discussion.

What does it say about the advertisers who decided to pull ads on Musk's X over some things he tweeted they felt uncomfortable with, or disagreed with? What are their thoughts on the Constitution, for example?

The whole idea of free speech is based on the premise of being able to freely express your opinions without fear of persecution. Yes, there are always going to be consequences depending on what you say. That has always been the case. And perhaps when it comes to business, that's as true there as it is anywhere else.

You can say what you want, but you have to accept some bad may come from it if a lot of people find it cringeworthy, frightening, or disgusting or ugly.

It's a double-edged sword is what I am saying. So, essentially, I am a bit on the fence. If I am a shareholder of a company, I don't want my investment to be negatively impacted by something my CEO says. At the same time can I still respect his right to do it? Can I be angry and tell him to shut up just because I shared in the consequences of what he said even if I may not agree with his position?

After all, I invested in the company. Not necessarily in the man who runs it. I value my investment. But I also value my rights more. And I have the same rights as the CEO does. In other words, I am understanding that I really can't have it both ways. And Musk is sort of saying that too.

It causes me to rethink, as well, my own reaction to certain things. Like the Bud Light controversy. Who exactly am I delivering pain to if I show my dislike of an opinion by not buying their products? The man who had the opinion I disagreed with? Or the potentially tens of thousands of people who will suffer the consequences along with him who may not also share his opinion? Who may also side with me.

If nothing else, I think what Elon Musk provides us with is a valuable insight into our own psyche and our own condition. Why are we so apt as a people to destroy someone who thinks differently than we do, and yet at the same time, consider our own opinions having a higher weight than other opinions?

When you attempt to silence one opinion through delivered pain, eventually the same will happen with one of your opinions, and if expression is silenced through fear, does it not eat away at the idea of freedom as a whole?

In other words, where's the line drawn?

I rather admire the idea that one is unwilling to change their mind or keep quiet simply because someone else thinks they should—or because, like the fate of Mike Lindell, you may well lose everything you've built by doing it.

What is ultimately being fired upon is not the business. It's the opinion. The business pain is simply the mechanism by which that pain is delivered. As a message. As a warning to others. Toe the line or else. Conform or else. 

Isn't that what communist countries do?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with my latest posts from all the places I may write them.