The recent announcements from major advertisers pulling back from the large social media channels due to ‘controversial content’ are part of a larger theme. This could develop in a number of ways but the ‘worst case scenario’ is pretty grim. Thread. #socialmedia #FreeSpeech

This could all seem excessively negative but seems to follow logically from the current context. If I’m wrong, I would love to hear why.

The current moral panic and cultural moment have created an environment for corporates where any meaningful social media engagement, content and advertising simply doesn’t work in terms of risk-reward.

You either end up with banal, meaningless, repetitive content; or end up alienating some significant number of potential customers or consumers.

The major social media companies have tried to hold a delicate balance. They need interesting and engaging user-created content, while at the same time trying to police egregious behaviour with some degree of consistency.

As the social media platforms became increasingly central to public conversation and communication, this balance has become harder to harder to strike.

In addition, the general left-liberal tilt of these organisations (largely due to location and age groups), has created increasing tensions in terms of defining appropriate and inappropriate content, and accusations of unequal treatment.

The social media firms may now look to more closely police the content on their platforms and further expand their definition of unacceptable comments.

The problem is that almost any genuinely original, interesting and thoughtful content is going to have the potential to upset or offend someone.

More concerted and deliberate filtering and highlighting of specific content will also erode the platform/publisher distinction and create a reinforcing dynamic.

Once they start taking responsibility for some content, the question will be raised as to why they aren’t responsible for all of it.

More filtering and censorship will only increase the accusations of inconsistent, unfair treatment; thus alienating further segments of users.

More and more individuals with even vaguely heterodox views will retreat into anonymity or behind protected accounts. The risk/reward is again, increasingly skewed.

Over time, the major platforms will become dull and bland woke echo chambers; eroding the very core of their original value proposition. New channels will be undermined by the new focus of major advertisers to steer clear of any potential controversy.

New platforms will continue to emerge though and will result in even greater polarization across platforms, embedding ever-more distinct and reinforced echo-chambers.

Barring a broader shift in the culture and a move away from our censorious moment, the major social media firms will find it much harder to enjoy the ‘free lunch’ they’ve enjoyed so far.

The podcast revolution will also be stunted, as the incentives to engage in any form of honest, open dialogue sink to almost zero apart from the most insulated individuals.

With the thorough-going institutional capture of most of mainstream media and academia by the current cultural revolutionaries, we will witness a through-going attempt to impose intellectual hegemony.

This is because the new orthodoxy has at its centre a rejection of liberal concepts of free expression, the marketplace of ideas, and objective debate as a path to truth. It is, as @JohnHMcWhorter observes, an impulse that has strong religious and fundamentalist undertones.

Hate Speech statutes will be expanded to include an ever-broader collection of statements and opinions until they are effectively speech codes.

This has already happened in Canada and the UK, but a Democrat-led House and Senate could conceivably launch a performative attempt to dilute First Amendment rights even in the USA.

This will be combined with ever more oppressive speech environments within corporate settings, undermining any sense of authenticity or honesty as people are obliged to state that 2 and 2 equal 5.

The ‘silent majority’ will look upon this in horror, but rarely act due to the disastrous personal, occupational and financial consequences of publicly questioning the ‘new consensus’.

They will increasingly desert the mainstream media and platforms, retreating into anonymity on the alternative platform that suits them best, but this will only increase polarization and erode any conception of a shared public square or objective reality across the demos.

The only people likely to act publicly are those with the means to insulate themselves, or those who have nothing to lose. An uneasy coalition of ‘FU Money’, the cancelled and the desperate.

Without a strong unifying identity or ideology, they will struggle to make any meaningful impact upon the discourse.

Tragically, those with nothing to lose may drift towards the opposite pole of authoritarianism, further driving the dynamic of polarization and providing further justification for censorship and groupthink.

There may be some temporary electoral setbacks for the new orthodoxy, but these will be minor hiccups given their cultural hegemony and institutional capture.

This will, of course, all take place and be exacerbated by a backdrop of profound economic malaise as we reach the limits of Central Bank activism, the debt super cycle and the West’s demographic Ponzi scheme (as laid out by @RaoulGMI).

The non-liberal powers of Russia and China will merrily foment these divisions through every possible channel and exploit the political and cultural implosion wherever possible.

The entire dynamic will most likely culminate in the new ‘Asian Century’ and the decisive shift in the geopolitical centre-of-gravity.

The end result for many Western Nations will likely be some unpleasant array of revolution; counter-revolution; major civil disturbance; regionalization; and secession.

Some, such as @EricRWeinstein think the institutions can be salvaged. Others, like @balajis, think that new ones can be created to supplant them. I hope they’re right.

In general though, it’s incredibly difficult to renew institutions; and incumbent institutions don’t give up without a fight.

Some people have been early on how dangerous this new orthodoxy is. @ConceptualJames @clairlemon @glukianoff are some of those who've tried to raise the alarm. I wonder if they look upon this with hope or despair at this point.