Ye, Twitter and Sartre – where are the boundaries for our digital authenticity?

Elon Musk and the shrinking brigade of Twitter engineers said yesterday they were ready to leak the files on the suppression of freedom of speech over the past few years. Whilst we assume this will largely involve creators, public speakers and influencers the outcome of this tug of war has real implications for who you are and who you might be…

The digital space does not always reflect and promote authenticity. From filters on influencers to tiktok trends, we often fabricate and subjugate our online selves. Philosophically, Sartre’s existentialism pivots on a concept of authenticity of the individual. This must be a state of Being, a constant choice for the individual which they must take entire accountability for. If they do not, they are moving in ‘bad faith’ and cannot create values which lead to diminishing anguish and promoting freedom. Why does what Sartre wrote in the 50’s matter now?

The notion of Twitter as the ‘town square’ involves necessarily this state of Being for every individual that encounters the platform. This is what distinguishes it from other digital spaces. The individual is responsible for what they say, and if they remain authentic to this perpetuation of ‘good faith,’ then this should lead to each individual creating value through their actions: moving towards their own ideal of freedom. This encapsulates the existentialist term: ‘freedom of self.’ The only boundary on free speech, on freedom itself, is when your ideals place any limit whatsoever on my right to explore this freedom. In any case, Sartre argues there is no bounds to freedom, so free-speech must be limitless.

In the case of many users who were removed for seemingly innocuous tweets this makes sense. These margins are usually more slim, like in the case of Ye – who we all know tweeted this:

de Beaviour was Sartre’s lover, who offered a rebuttal to this no-bound limit to freedom of expression. She too aligned with the Existential ideology that we must create our own values and meaning in a world that is devoid of both, yet offers us a twist to freedom-of-self. de Beaviour makes the case that where our freedom of expression directly impacts others’, then this is not promoting freedom in its totality. This makes the case for generally marginalised groups, as Ye’s voice and its global audience clearly has more likelihood to inhibit freedom than if any other guy from Chicago said it.

She makes a good point.

Why does any of this matter to you? Well, we are witnessing a very public redrawing of the lines in the sand. No matter where you think the line should be drawn, there is no universally recognised answer. Should Ye have been banned in the first place? Should he have been reinstated? No matter what you think, he has been. So Elon has taken a freedom-of-self stance on the subject of free speech. So for you?

That means freedom of discussion. Freedom of thought. Freedom of choice. Hopefully. Whilst the encroaching technocracy seems to be impending on the individual’s choices specifically in the digital sphere, this appears to be a win. I say appears, a man living month to month can surely never understand a billionaire’s motivation for anything. From the absurd misinformation labelling throughout Covid of alternative narratives to the decline in belief in mainstream media, the digital space is only going to become more important in deciding the direction of the next decade.

Should we place enough good faith in others to genuinely believe they are speaking from a place of authenticity, rather than they are spreading hateful rhetoric? We are going to have to it looks like. Of course, not everyone deserves that benefit of the doubt but by definition there can be no bounds to freedom.

So to be able to express ourselves towards freedom promoting ends in an intentional and authentic manner replaces some of the trust in the everyday man that was taken away over the past few years. No matter where you draw the line on what can and cant be said, it at least appears that establishing the sovereignty of the individual as his own bookkeeper is the ideal. Secondarily, he should of course consult his immediate circles, or rationalise whether what he would like to say is likely to impact the freedom of others, as Ye probably should have. But with so much of our lives spent in the digital space, we need to ensure we are all maximising our authenticity there, promoting creation of values and perpetuating each other towards freedom.

If you enjoyed please consider subscribing so you don’t miss bi-weekly writings.

If you would like to contact me, please do so here:

Tweets by willfaconnelly

Why bother making content online if nobody is going to see it?

The internet is oversaturated we are told. 97% of those on Youtube will never make a penny. No doubt that if you’re reading this, creating in the public eye may have entered your mind. Or writing in the public view, perhaps. But your work being in the public view, and being actually viewed by the public, are vastly different things. So, why even bother?

Why not just keep your work to yourself and wait until you have honed the skills, or maybe just don’t even work even work on them. The hyper-marketing requisite of social media, and more broadly online media, makes it difficult to get your work seen. Regardless of the niche. It is not the most talented musician that appears on our YouTube home page, it is the one who understands the mechanisms that lead a video to be placed there. So, not strictly a meritocracy – which is a shame. The best violinist may have an online presence but their ability to market their content is sub-par compared to the lip-syncing TikToker.

Was this not what we expected when we democratised content creation though? Previously, the institutions that distributed material gate-kept and cherry picked. Now, anyone can be a movie star. Andy Warhol’s claim that: “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes” speaks directly to our generation. Was the artist foreshadowing the blunting of the once gild-edged sword that personified ‘creation?’

Is it a race to the bottom, the common denominator that gets promoted online rather than creatives of any substance or ilk? Does the TikTok trend get hundreds of millions of views, whilst a cultural commentator’s channel warning of existential threats get hardly a thousand? Yes, it seems so. Still, this shouldn’t deter you from creating in public view.

The cultural commentator would have been forced traditionally to keep their thoughts to themselves with no outlet for them, so the novelty of having new avenues to explore differing narratives should encourage us to create. The legacy media perpetuating celebrity dramas and fear-mongering has less of an impact in an age of new media, with Joe Rogan significantly more viewed than CNN. So this democratisation leading to the New American Dream that: ‘anyone can get famous’ cannot only be viewed in terms of black and white.

Why does any of this affect whether you bother to shout into the void or not and use your precious vocal chords to scream into your pillow? Its that the opportunity to build, create and innovate in public view, not necessarily whilst being viewed by the public, is the definition of a dress rehearsal. There could not be a greater preparation. A chance to refine your skillset, learn how to pull the rabbit out of the hat and perfect your tricks. Then, the moment someone enters the room you leave them in awe. There’s a chance they paid to get in too. Then a row of people show up, clapping as you do it, The motivation is inspirational, you attempt a more flamboyant, audacious effort this time.

Its about momentum. The sustaining of energy, energy that is very willing to work in your direction now that you have mobilised it. Maybe you keep performing your trick and no one ever shows up. Like ever. But then you had the exact same experience as if you performed in it in your room, minus the potential for change. And sometimes the potential for change is all we need to create actual change. Not even necessarily in the same field. Perhaps that potential for people to come in and watch your trick is the probe that makes you realise you don’t want to be a performer. You want to be a surgeon, or a zoologist or a postman. Who knows. But if you hadn’t forced this potential into action, perhaps you would have wasted years coming to this realisation about what it is you wanted. Maybe, you never would have realised it at all.

It takes a certain ilk to get on the stage, ignore the fear of ridicule and present whatever narrow aspect of yourself you feel will be best received. It certainly doesn’t seem like anything you would regret doing if done mindfully, something that would have some transferrable skills. Again, if done mindfully.

Which a lot of the internet is not mindful. Notoriously so. Especially for children who have grown up not being able to remember a time a phone wasn’t glued to their hand. The danger of having fun and placing things into the view of the public can have lifetime long effects. In that regard, you hope that no one saw it when you grow out of the phase where you thought that behaviour was cool or appropriate.

But if you are engaging mindfully with the world, which I should hope we all are, then engaging mindfully with the amphitheatre of the internet can become apart of that curious engagement. Maybe it should. But don’t worry about perfecting your dance, stress about hitting every note before you tip-toe up the steps and belt your song of innocence. There’s plenty of beauty to be found in innocence, and the world needs as much of that as it can get. Even if you think no-one is watching.

Is it I or my ego that wants to write a poetry book?

Any piece of work should make us question whether we are just driven by ego, spouting out drivel and wasting the reader’s time … or if we have something meaningful to contribute

I had set myself several writing aims for the back end of this year. One was entering the National Poetry competition, the shortest and least time-consumptive of my targets. I missed the deadline. I have several efforts I could have entered, but none that I thought would have gained me an honourable mention. So without the notion of a potential mention, I failed to enter.

A fair amount of procrastination can account for the failing. I had ideas, and set out plans but never sat down to execute one. I even attended their free workshop to inspire ideas. So how much of my wanting to write is motivated by ego? Is that not why only a week after not wanting to write for the competition, I felt compelled to put together a few pieces I have already written into a poetry collection? Is it just so that I can clinch some sort of egoic grip around a fistful of meaningless letters? The hope that someone might take the cover sandwiching the worthless words inside and put it on a shelf next to a Keats collection, so that it may take some meaning?

If I am writing for the wrong reasons, then why have I got a few diaries full of scribbles never to be seen? Can something which is written for the intention of being published still retain the innocence and self-exploration that a piece such as this can? Or am I only sitting here pressing these keys, in what I assume to be a coherent order, so that you may glance your eyes over the sum of my work before your fingers return you to doom-scrolling?

I didn’t have the issue of needing to discern between what to publish until I felt compelled to attempt to explore how serious one can get with putting words on a page, as I am trying through enterprises such as this or sharing poetry. These few paragraphs here I am sure will help me orient myself somewhere, with the thousands I will hopefully write through this blog offering a better pinpoint.