Telegram played a big part in information sharing and collaboration during Covid. Being pseudonymous and having a pretty strong adversity to banning people or channels made it very popular.

The main issue I found is the opposing mainstream messages ironically became largely propaganda and mistruth based. You could find people who disbelieved the government and Pharma lies - however it was hard to believe anything in the chat, as it was full of angry people who would say anything to try counter the government’s lies.

And the people who should have been speaking out like doctors and nurses were threatened with their jobs. It’s hard to whistleblow in that case without being public about your identities.

Hopefully we can do better next time… it’s all pretty complex.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I completely agree; you're right, although it may sound simple, it is indeed a complex matter.

Philosophically, I believe the best way to counteract bad speech is to encourage more speech. Moreover, I strongly feel that censorship has contributed to growing anger among people, as it not only restricts the understanding of diverse thoughts but also makes individuals feel powerless. History has taught us that when peaceful means of protest are removed, people tend to resort to violence.

In my opinion, the optimal approach would be to give users full control over their own experience and hold them accountable for their own words.

While there may be bad actors, this approach remains superior to our current one imo.