Being able to share different opinions can open discussions and bring progress
By Jacobo Azcona
Photo courtesy via Wikimedia Commons
When I was younger and I heard of scientific discoveries, I never really pictured how it worked. Now, as I have been introduced into academia, I understand that there is a driving force in the community: Freedom of speech. It might sound obvious, but the benefits of such a basic right are extremely valuable. Combining the right to express ideas, the power of discussion and diversity of perspectives, results in establishing new truths.
Which often means progress.
We can’t underestimate the role of honest discussion in our society and culture.
Why do I mention this?
In modern times, this universal right is facing a new hurdle: technology.
Social media, more specifically. Popularity and influence can now grow to unreal numbers thanks to the web. A single person can reach millions if not billions of impressions and broadcast their opinions and ideas instantly. A difficult question to ask is, whether that’s good or bad. For the moment, I think only time will tell. But there have already been cases were people have been “cancelled”. This term refers to the situation where somebody’s social media accounts are banned, blocked or deleted. In other words, digital silence.
Combining the right to express ideas, the power of discussion and diversity of perspectives, results in establishing new truths.
Andrew Tate is a 35-year-old internet personality and entrepreneur. He rose to fame – among other reasons – after several appearances in various podcasts where he discussed his opinion and ideas. Although the comical value in his delivery can be seen, most media channels label him as controversial. His views on women and the way they are portrayed and presented are far from respectful. Tied to his “rich mafia boss” personality, he has attained a huge number of haters. However, he recently got banned from many social media apps such as Instagram or YouTube. Many of Andrew Tate’s followers are categorized as “directionless young men”.
Without a doubt, Andrew Tate is a character many– even him on some occasions – consider misogynistic and sexist. This is due to his way of arguing which clearly carries a tone of absolute truth, not considering that he can only see his perspective. However, if we avoid any prejudice and listen to his arguments, they are logical and coherent, although his conclusions are far-fetched . Andrew Tate might be a character, but he’s certainly intelligent enough to articulate powerful arguments to support his perspective. He was a professional kickboxer in an earlier stage of his life and he successfully built several businesses to make him extremely wealthy. Avoiding any bias about his personality, he is – in his own words – a “high value man”.
If we avoid any prejudice and listen to his arguments, they are logical and coherent, although his conclusions are far-fetched
You may agree or disagree with his views, but he is certainly helping young men to understand the importance of discipline, hard work and responsibility. I personally can see parallels between Andrew Tate’s fanbase and that of Jordan Peterson.- famous clinical psychologist and author who also participates in debates and podcasts ¬– as they are addressing the same audience. Perhaps it’s for political reasons but I believe there is a real need in young men for mentorship to navigate the male role in today’s society. If you are cancelling Andrew Tate, or any person who speaks to the same cohort of people, you might actually create friction between groups in society. And at the end of the day, this situation does not allow for honest discussion.
Allowing him to express his views is a basic right. But specially seeing the value for the young male audience, cancelling Andrew Tate might even hinder societal progress. That’s why I believe that banning him from social media should be seen as unreasonable censorship. We should prosecute it as if it was a government-imposed silence. Since social media is mostly centralized, and the group controlling them is very small, it’s easy to track down the decisions taken for the ban. No one elected them, and yet they are deciding who can talk or not.
This is not meant to serve as a defence nor a platform for Andrew Tate. It is merely a recent reminder of the future problems we will have to face in order to let our rights coexist with our technology.
