Dumb censorship - surely this is the last chapter in big-tech platform dominance.

Edward Taaffe
6 min readAug 10, 2021

Play your part in this huge and important decision that will have impacts for decades.

We have all been dragged into the conversations and all probably hoped someone else will fix it soon. Our Social Media had become as important as our phone and right at the top of our living needs. In Maslov terms its down there on level two. Of course we dont want to kicked off, wed rather a quiet life. The problem is that each platform has been building enormous datasets on each of us, trading their data for that of another platform, buying data from everywhere we go and stalking us even as we sleep.

Stalking is criminal, but Censorship is dumb.

I’m not saying I’d rather be criminal than dumb, though I probably would. What I’m saying is that all the stalking is less useful to those who pay for it than they think. It often blinds them with wrong messages and costs fortunes, only when stolen inaccurate data is used by officialdom does it really hurt.

On the other hand Dumb Censorship, is evil on two critical fronts:

The backbone of everything we know as a species is based on publish and discuss. Without peer review, whether it be a respected journal, a Social media platform, or even a park bench, what opportunity is there to be reminded of errors and receive challenges to our bias. The Peer review process also generates new and better ideas. In addition to that, peer review gives the thinker confidence to think further outside the box and then to criticise it, thats the key principal of ideation that has prevailed since the early Greek philosophers. “Publish and be damned”

“There are none so stupid as those afraid to think”

And yet, censorship orders people not to think thoughts that are not to the liking of certain individuals in power.


Dumb censorship is too lazy to read and understand the content, but rather uses author’s names, titles and keywords to decide that, “I dont like this content, I will block it.”
If you’re still kidding yourself that Google is smart, take your head out of your lunch bag and do a few tests. The king of search will respond to each and every request with a long list of useless blog posts many as much as a decade old and gamed with one of the keywords from your search that it likes or its profile of you thinks you will like. And that is the better one.
Have you cancelled Spotify yet? Just set up a few things you like and listen then until you give up and delete it will dream up obnoxious junk that it imagines you like and just throw it at you until you scream and delete.

Now ask yourself, is this the type of approach that is right for checking posts and articles just in case they might deliberately be spreading stuff that doesn’t fit the current narrative?

Then ask yourself, would it not be far better to let the real peers who won’t agree or will know better, do their job and either enlighten the readers, or put this person in their place for deliberately lying or being lazy.

Finally the big one:
Who has the power to force these global monopolies to only allow the posting of things that are beneficial to their pet agenda?

Is it wise to allow a government (lets not even get into which government censoring what citizens) to decide what people can say and to determine by means of threats and force what people will believe?

Even if there were, and there are, some groups with less than honest goals out there, which do you believe in your heart is the greater risk to society;
1. Small groups and individuals getting to say in public stuff that is potentially wrong or might cause a few others to follow a less than honest cause or temporarily hold foolish views.

2. Allowing the democratically elected government to suppress free speech and use their enormous powers, heavily subsidised with emergency legislation that allows them to remove all human rights and even have people certified and locked away without explaining themselves to anyone, control the social discourse of an entire nation via bullying platforms and buying publishers with favours.

Here’s my take on this:

Winston Churchill, born into a Feudal age, said after WW2 that Democracy is the better of a bad lot of options, or words to that effect. He said that after watching the destruction and death and the end of Europe’s dictatorships one of them being England.

He was right and his wisdom came not from Eton but from the battlefield.
Democracy is not great when it works, but it is no longer working in UK, Hungary, Brazil, USA and a long list and it is clearly struggling in many others.
Everyone should stand up for the pillars of democracy and there are none more sturdy or fundamental, than free speech and human rights as defined in the European treaty after WW2, predominantly drafted by the UK, the very people who now are busy denying those same rights to British citizens.

My experiences yesterday with Linkedin, the ones that prompted me to write this piece.

I posted the following content on Linkedin only to have one of the commentators message me saying that his response was ready, but why have I removed the post?

You’re not surprised, I imagine when I say that, Linkedin had removed the post.

Here is my second post attempting to discuss the censorship:

“Do you see anything about my post that seems unsafe?
Do you see anything about my recent post that seems unprofessional?
Do see anything about my post that seems untrustworthy?

Could this be a comment on Dr Malone?
or could it be that an invisible someone doesn’t want mere citizens discussing our world and the clowns we have put temporarily in charge?”

It’s a brave man or woman who uses words like unsafe, unprofessional, or untrustworthy about me.
What is your opinion, is there something about this post that I dont know?
Is that not the point in posting?

Everything after the “see more” is missing now from the original, but you have the gist of it

Below the post, I had added a summary from Google scholar of this mans impressive academic achievements and they prove beyond doubt that he is very much who he claims to be and a leading expert in his subject matter.
Just in case you are in doubt, he invents vaccines, so he’s hardly an anti-vaxxer.

I’m not medically knowledgeable.
I’m a consultant. I ask awkward questions and help smarter people than I to arrive at safe conclusions. I’m also experience in GxP, the protocol used to keep processes like the development, manufacture and distribution of this vaccine safe. That’s my small contribution to the discussion.

We simply can’t accept this silent, arms-length censorship without explanation.

I am asking all of you to take part in the very important government consultation happening right now, which discusses precisely this and related problems emanating from the stranglehold of tech monopolies, the risks to our way of life and most of all, to democracy itself.
This could be your last chance to tame or depose the dictator.

Take a few minutes and visit the consultation here: Your children and grandchildren are relying on you.

Thank you for reading.



Edward Taaffe

Ed is a technical consultant and writer in the areas of Digital and Products. He writes here on random subjects that catch the eye.