It’s true that Sacha Baron Cohen is not mincing words here, and it’s also easy to say that he makes several good points. But like many others it would seem that he’s not taking into account that free-thinking individuals are still out there and are still able to make up their own minds as to what’s right and what’s wrong. There’s a great deal of conjecture here, just as anyone and everyone talking about the issue of social media has talked about, and while he does have a solid point that social media can in fact be a problem, he’s not offering an ironclad solution. He has plenty of quotes, he has plenty of factual data, and he has his own opinions about the effect and impact of social media, but is it the only one that matters? Social media of course is a problematic part of our world as it stands now, and it is at times rather troubling with what it will and does show. But one thing Cohen seems to forget, this is human nature. It doesn’t matter if we have social media or not, the nature of humanity is, as it’s always been, a very complicated thing. Thinking that social media is the only thing that exacerbates it is a bit naive, not to mention dismissive of the real-world problems that occur between individuals and groups on a day to day basis. What’s funny is that he’s created a great deal of satire showing the nature of humanity, he’s been sued for doing so, and yet he seems adamant that it’s time to shut social media down in a way, to limit what they can do, to limit what people can say, and to make sure that the ‘wrong’ material and people are not allowed on social media. Zack Sharf of IndieWire has a few things to say on his own behalf.
It’s fair to say that he is correct in calling out social media, and that it does allow for a lot of bigotry, racism, and other negative aspects of humanity to filter into society. Is he new to this world though? If one is going to call out social media, let’s call out the news media, the talk shows, the supposed scholars that assure us constantly of how the world works, and in doing so let’s simply shut it all down and remind ourselves that the world seemed to work better when we weren’t in it, or when things weren’t so connected as they are now. Wait, it didn’t work that well back then either. No one is about to say let’s stay as separated as we can, or let’s completely disconnect and go back to the times when humanity was truly divided by more than just geographical distance. But if Cohen wants to be truly fair, he’s not offering much of a compromise or a solution since at this time and in this era one unifying solution would be to think for yourself, which is something that far too many people seem to be incapable of doing. He’s living proof of this as he’s already cited considering that while in character he’s convinced various people to say or do or simply go along with certain ideas. One might call him a hypocrite for this if not for the fact that he’s been actively trying to sort out the problems that come from turning a blind eye to the major issues in humanity, but quite honestly asking anyone and everyone to become an advocate for denying anyone the freedom to say what they want, no matter how abhorrent, in any venue is a step in a direction that many have taken in the past and one that has led to nowhere good. Eugene Scott of The Washington Post has a few interesting things to say that people might want to hear.
What’s frustrating about this whole thing is that he is right, Mark Zuckerberg needs to be held accountable for the creation that he’s let loose. But Cohen and many other celebrities are talking AT the issue more often than not instead of trying to do something ABOUT it. We get a lot of talk, a good deal of comedy, a lot of conjecture, and even more lecturing about how apathy towards racism and many other issues only worsens the problem, but it’s very easy for individuals who’s net worth is in the millions to step forward and begin doing something about, as some of them have thankfully. Yet for all that the issue of deciding who gets to speak on what platform and who gets to say what they want when and where is a very derisive matter that has yet to be perfected by anyone, no matter how right it might be in spirit. The moment that a person starts be limited for what they say or do, barring any call to actively harm another person, it becomes an issue of why some people get to spread their words, and others do not. While hateful ideas and words are very much in need of being avoided and possibly banished, the fine line that exists when it comes to free speech is still hard to move or bend as one wants in order to deny some without eventually denying all. Ryan Lattanzio of IndieWire has more to say on this matter.
Follow Us
