Gatekeepers, Snowflakes, and the Irony of Free Speech

If there’s one hill I’m prepared to die on, it’s the one where I champion others to tell their stories, contribute, and be heard. But what I absolutely despise is gatekeeping. ??

The Hypocrisy of Social Media "Free Speech" Advocates

In my many interactions on social media, I've noticed some glaring issues that point to a broader problem in our discourse—both online and offline. Notably, there's a hollow hypocrisy among those who claim to be proponents of free speech.

Before diving into examples, let me lay out my principles clearly. Despite my various challenges against questionable behaviours in business, there's nothing I value more than free speech. However, don’t confuse 'free speech' with freedom from consequence or a rebuttal.

For the record, I have never deleted my own comments, shied away from conceding ground when convinced by a stronger argument, or reported someone for their views, no matter how ill-informed they may be. On the contrary, actually—I prefer misguided views to be out in the open where everyone can see them for what they are.

Case in Point: The Riots and Immigration

During the height of the riots a few weeks ago, I came across numerous spurious, half-baked posts by notable business owners, seemingly constructed in MS-Paint,? that conflated every imaginable issue in the UK with immigration. One post in particular combined Keir Starmer's policy on the Winter Fuel Allowance with illegal immigration, featuring this low-effort, copy-pasted quote:

“If only you stopped the boats as quick as you did the winter fuel allowance… Imagine. Keep this going.”

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it's a copy-pasted knee-jerk one. I get it—the issue is complex and difficult to swallow, affecting many people. I don’t even have a full stance yet. But what happens when you counter comments calling for

“all non-nationals to be immediately expelled”?

The Ronseal Response

Curious, I asked for a definition of ‘non-national’ and received a textbook "Ronseal" answer—‘what it says it is.’ ??

A definition by self-reference is hardly enlightening and doesn't bode well for someone’s grasp of a concept or its application.?

I’d quote my follow-up, but here's the kicker: it’s mysteriously nowhere to be found, along with the entire thread. ??♂? Even more mysteriously, I received a notification from the LinkedIn overlords that my comments had been reported for being offensive.

The Real Definition

My deleted comment clarified that there isn’t a singular definition of non-nationals in the UK but generally a non-national is defined as someone without UK citizenship or not born in the UK. This definition includes:

Individuals on work visas

International students

Those married to UK citizens

Refugees

Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) holders

Commonwealth citizens with the Right of Abode

All these groups have a legal right to reside in the UK, obtained through lawful means. Yet, based on the approach mentioned earlier, they would all be expelled. ????

Any guess what happens when one asks for someone to confirm if they would include these groups, on a thread denouncing ILLEGAL immigrants no less??

Crickets...

And my comments mysteriously disappearing faster than you can say ‘Houdini’

Spotting the Irony

Here’s a simple rule of thumb I follow: If someone starts a comment or argument by criticising 'snowflakes' and the 'woke,' while expressing a deep fear of being cancelled, it's a pretty safe bet that their argument will be half-baked and, more alarmingly, that they’ll attempt to silence any opposing views. The irony is palpable.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I'm all for free speech. But let’s not pretend it’s a one-way street. If you're arguing that everyone should have the right to speak their mind, then that includes those who disagree with you. Shocking, right?

Another example, mysteriously absent from my feed, was a post about smallpox that once again conflated the current government’s supposed authoritarianism with a conspiracy to use monkeypox to impose militant oppression on the populace.

I sh*t you not.

The post contained numerous bizarre claims, though I admit I don’t recall them all clearly (thank God).?

However, one in particular stood out:

?“Why should we suffer another lockdown when it’s only a disease affecting gays?”

In response, I challenged this by explaining the origins of a similar bloodborne virus, HIV, and the initial, damaging hysteria at its onset, which largely condemned the gay community. Although they can be more susceptible to HIV, it’s a virus that affects everyone indiscriminately, and the comment above was cloaked in bigotry. To this, I was asked:

“Well, how does it spread? Oh, and I’ve Googled it,”

Followed by a flurry of links that actually refuted their own claim but still didn’t come from a medical authority.

Suffice it to say, I replied “vaginal intercourse” (get over! it's merely a medical term) with a link to multiple medical journals—or, in other words, a disproof by counterexample. And can you guess what happened next? Another strange, mysterious disappearance of both my and their comments.

I guess self-censorship is, in a way, an admission of being wrong. The problem with anyone who can’t admit they’re wrong is that they’re untrustworthy and resistant to broadening their views—well, allergic to facts, really.

So next time you hear about ‘cancel culture’ and ‘snowflakes,’ ask yourself:

Who’s cancelling whom? And why the feigned fear of being cancelled?

I comment voraciously on a broad range of contentious topics, and not once have I feared being cancelled, because, in large part, I’ve constructed a cogent argument while engaging in good faith and am happy to concede ground when swayed.

It’s called being an adult.

Most issues are complex and any simple take or solution is likely insufficient.

For instance, whilst my main focus during the riots was to stand in solidarity with POC and denounce the violence and racism they suffered, it doesn’t mean I don’t understand the concerns of the white populous, especially those from working class backgrounds who have experienced decades of neglect.

For instance, I challenged the idea that ‘reverse racism’ doesn’t exist, and emphasised the struggles of the white populous in the following post which lead to many thoughtful accounts by POC and white people, in which everyone gained some insights in the difficulties in defining ‘privilege’ and how it can be counterproductive.?

https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/annazannides_lets-talk-about-white-privilege-if-we-activity-7228328614700691456-AG0r?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Social media can feel like a battlefield.

You post an opinion, and suddenly, you're either a racist appeaser or a left-wing idiot.

But what if there's more than just two sides to every story?

Censorship on a Post about Mental Illness Stigma.

If there's one thing I'm passionate about, it's mental health—especially smashing the stigma around it, and opening up, particularly for men. I've chatted with many men, some incredibly successful, about mental health and suicide, who I've connected with exclusively through LinkedIn.

Many aren't fans of 'sentimental' or surface-level posts that don’t offer real support and they cite multiple hypocrisies and issues which lead to men not seeking support. It's a deep subject, beyond the scope of this article, which I will touch open after some thought and the necessary research and consultation.

My post above, admittedly didn't have all the answers but doesn't claim to. I'm no expert, nor do I have the necessary clinical or professional experience.

I had 2 hours at the end of a long day and wanted to write a post, in which I could go a little deeper than a slogan or message of solidarity. In leveraging my own experiences, I aimed to encourage open discussion, reduce the stigma of mental illness, dispel misconceptions (OK, that one requires a deep dive) and lower unnecessary barriers.

I've always believed every true act of advocacy (it's the best word I can use, but really I'm referring to a good deed) requires a level of sacrifice. In part, that was risking my vulnerability could impact my business but also the risk of a nuanced subject being misconstrued. The responsibility, to be sensitive to sufferers of mental illness, and those grieving the loss of a loved one to suicide, is not lost on me either.

I want to make it clear. I don't believe there is always a definitive hallmark of mental illness related to suicide, nor are there always signs, I certainly don't seek to blame anyone and have a huge deal of sympathy for all those impacted. Those who have sadly departed, those currently contemplating and those that remain.

I don't advocate for a 'right' approach in opening up or seeking help. My conversations with many men show there is a wide variance in temperament and preference and that's perfectly OK. I'm on the sentimental end of the spectrum, some men are more stoic. I'd argue being vulnerable is an act of strength, but the details are academic.

The key is men get help or find a way to connect on a deeper level with their peers, friends, family and colleagues. Whether that's a round of golf, a few beers down the pub or a quick natter. On the other hand, there are societal issues included lack of identity, isolation, social media, economic hardship, addiction and trauma that must be examined if we are to find a truly effective solutions.

My hope was, and is, in signalling there's no shame in mental illness or suicidal ideation, others will do too.

So what happens when someone comments on my posts, calling out corporate/advocate hypocrisy and speaking to systemic challenges facing men with contentious yet well-thought-out points?

Their comments, and consequently mine, are deleted, in what I suspect (on good evidence) is a 'well meaning' (I'm being too kind) act of censorship from someone who has reported them.

What does this achieve?

For one, I seek to be challenged and have zero issue engaging on topics with anyone, especially when they don't resort to character attack, which, even then, only bothers me when it's directed at others. Naturally, I aim to balance the impact of my words, with the conviction of my principles, with the assuredness in which I voice my views being proportionate to my knowledge on a subject.

But that's a different equation for everyone.

There was nothing remotely in violation of community guidelines and in censoring that person and consequently me, we've lost out on an example of discourse, on a sensitive topic that's already mired in stigma, being carried out in good faith, with a constructive conclusion.

An important conversation, the point of which the post was seeking to encourage, was stifled and if anything, it will further entrench views.

Perhaps the commenter had a point?

After all, they pointed to no one caring when men open up and bam. Poof. Vamoosh.

Comments gone.

For the record, I don't agree with all the views, and have written some scathing critiques on their posts, but we've never had an issue and have mutually conceded ground many times

I know it's not high stakes.

It's a post.

I'm just a recruiter.

I'm not a paramedic, Psychologist, Psychiatrist or a mental health expert.

But the foundations of free speech are an important pillar in finding means for collective solutions to be sought. Especially, ways to find common ground and reduce the barriers for advocacy.

We need to find a way to have difficult conversations.

Leaders and corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders

Our responsibility should be in building a better society. With corporate backing or not.

It's clear to me, at least on social media, with increasingly arbitrary automated moderation, and reactionary censorship by those across the ideological and political spectrum, our discourse has been reduced to vacuous circle-jerks, hyper-commerce, and social engineering disguised as a sales funnel & thought leadership.

If I am ever bestowed the dishonourable title 'thought leader' - shoot me.

Don't cancel me for saying that, I'm not seriously inciting violence against myself.

It's called hyperbole. Ok maybe a touch of jealousy. I've always wanted to be Stephen Bartlett.

In the words of another well meaning person, lacking in execution, Alanis Morrisette.

Isn't Ironic. Don't you think?

Vulnerability is Strength. Kindness is Strength. Change takes all kinds, with all types of ideas.

When you ditch generalisation and tribalism, and instead aim to be vulnerable and exchange openly, you'll find that most people share similar worries and constraints. It's through constructive discourse and acknowledging experiences that we can achieve a lot—even if it's just someone feeling validated and heard.

If one thing is constant among those who engaged in the riots, it's the feeling of not being heard.

Their major error? Channelling that frustration into attacking another group with a similar lack of visibility.

Moreover, my opinion of the media isn’t one-sided. We don’t need to throw away all journalism because some headlines are misleading. Just to question narratives, especially when about groups we have little experience of. To broaden that experience, we should diversify our relationships and look outwardly.?

Regarding social media advocacy? I have no idea.

But my doors are open and I welcome all opinions - don't mistake that for me not challenging you if I don't agree or me not thinking you are an idiot if you act like one.