Letter writer backpeddling
Perry Foster has accused me of distorting the wording and intent of his musings. He even went so far as to suggest that the idea that a deliberate attempt was made by him to obscure this fact that government regulations are what world leaders agree is needed on social media was specious on my part.
Let’s talk specious. First Perry Foster says the disgraceful suppression of both information and opinion by big tech is nothing less than contemptible. “But don’t take my word for it” he says, and then goes on to say a bunch of world leaders have condemned Twitter’s deplatforming and silencing of the former president twits, “…because they did not adhere to the 1984ish ‘right think’ they approve of.”
Mr. Foster wrote, “Again, there was no stated objection on my part about the role of government in extreme circumstances and no attempt to hide the importance of it,” even though he originally stated, “… a recent call from American politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for a separate U.S. governmental commission to stop ‘disinformation.’ Translation? That would be anything that is not politically pleasing to them. It has little to do with ‘mis’ or ‘dis’ information.”
Now he is trying to backpeddle and say the point of his letter was that Big Tech is wielding undue influence and power and that millions of people realize this, including the governments of major nations. I just cannot keep up with Mr. Foster’s ever-changing attitudes.
Which is it Perry? Do you support more government regulations and laws to suppress so called information and opinions held by the likes of Donald Trump to prevent incitement to violence, hate speech, and misinformation or do you think it is disgraceful to suppress both the information and opinions of individuals, including the likes of Donald Trump?
Maybe what Mr. Foster is having a problem articulating is his desire for it to be OK for the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre but not OK for the left to show the crowd where the exits are.
Dara Quast
Cobble Hill