Enlightened absolutism (also called enlightened despotism or benevolent despotism) refers to the conduct and policies of European absolute monarchs during the 18th and 19th centuries who were influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, espousing them to enhance their power. The concept originated during the Enlightenment period in the 18th and into the early 19th centuries.
An enlightened absolutist is a non-democratic or authoritarian leader who exercises their political power based upon the principles of the Enlightenment.
Enlightened monarchs distinguished themselves from ordinary rulers by claiming to rule for their subjects’ well-being. John Stuart Mill stated that despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement.
The enlightened despot Emperor Joseph II of Austria summarized, “Everything for the people, nothing by the people”.
Frederick the Great, who ruled Prussia 1740–1786, was an enthusiast for French ideas (he ridiculed German culture and was unaware of the remarkable advances it was undergoing). Voltaire, who had been imprisoned and maltreated by the French government, was eager to accept Frederick’s invitation to live at his palace. Frederick explained, “My principal occupation is to combat ignorance and prejudice … to enlighten minds, cultivate morality, and to make people as happy as it suits human nature, and as the means at my disposal permit. He wrote an essay on “Benevolent Despotism” defending this system of government.
In February 1781, Joseph issued an edict drastically reducing the power of state censorship over the press. Censorship was limited only to expression that (a) blasphemed against the church, (b) subverted the government, or (c) promoted immorality. Censorship was also taken out of the hands of local authorities and centralized under the Habsburg imperial government.
Joseph was remarkably tolerant of dissenting speech—his censors banned only about 900 tracts published each year (down from 4,000 a year banned before his reign). One tract that even criticized him specifically, titled “The 42 Year-Old Ape”, was not banned.
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth correct the record to make it accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence, the “why”, is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.
A Snapshot From Poynter’s Fake News Methodology; Eerily Similar To The Ministry of Truth (https://archive.is/gzcvC#selection-2863.0-2863.16)
fake: Fake News Codex: “Sites that are fake,… A site doesn’t need to exclusively publish fake content to qualify. In fact, many publish a great deal of authentic material, though it’s typically presented in a biased and tawdry fashion. This ‘real’ content serves as cover for the fake.”….
OpenSources: “Conspiracy Theory: Sources that are well-known promoters of kooky conspiracy theories.”
One could easily view the above definition from a ‘glass half-full’ perspective and instead use the word ‘speculation’ rather than ‘Kooky Conspiracy’. Should speculation be banned?
unreliable: FactCheck.org: “Websites that have posted deceptive content.” Fake News Codex: Sites that are “extremely misleading… We do not include sites that merely have a clear political or ideological bias.”
First it’s this, then it’s that, then you don’t know, but eventually you end up with a list of ‘fake news’ sites (list was removed and not easily found). Add group think into this equation, and why should we be surprised by this outcome? I might also add that Al-exios Mant-zarl-is has been working on this project since 2014, maybe longer
Tried searching “facebook bans epoch times”, and none of the top search results come from epoch times, a company that is rapidly growing this year (2019). Went several pages forward, not one. Hundreds of websites, not one from Epoch Times https://archive.is/KLTw6
What if the government is oppressing them, and they are freedom fighters; facebook doesn’t know the difference and can’t fairly empathize with their circumstances because they are not there. Link here: https://archive.is/Fz0oS
https://archive.is/ikI5g (example of double standards being applied when it is profitable — will probably happen again, even after they ‘do something about it’. Facebook could potentially call this opinion fake news because I don’t have evidence that proves they will do it again, and thus I am just making a false assumption. They could potentially deboost an opinion such as this because it violates one of their opaque community standards guidelines. You can see how quickly this can transition into something that is politically/profit motivated; the road to hell is always paved with good intentions)
(Associated Press) “Hours after the Facebook founder’s comments about Holocaust deniers aired on Wednesday, the company announced it will also start removing misinformation that could lead to bloodshed. The policy will begin in Sri Lanka and expand to Myanmar, where Facebook users have been accused of inciting anti-Muslim violence. But beyond those guidelines, there are large gray areas. What, exactly, qualifies as supporting terrorist groups versus merely posting about them? Or mocking someone’s premature death — something that is also prohibited? If Facebook were to ban Holocaust denial, it might also be called on to prohibit the denial of other historical events, such as the Armenian genocide or the massacre of Native Americans by European colonizers. This, Facebook might argue, could lead to a slippery slope where the company finds itself trying to verify the historical accuracy of users’ posts”. Link: https://archive.is/PYQ2I
https://archive.is/LZSbU (Maddox well known, long history. The post received significant fanfare)
(interesting article, but unrelated to the topic of this post)
“Commit to transparency — sign up for the International Fact-Checking Network’s code of principles” Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20191101030805/https://www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/
Quote from page: “The code of principles of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter is a series of commitments organizations abide by to promote excellence in fact-checking. We believe nonpartisan and transparent fact-checking can be a powerful instrument of accountability journalism”.
IFCN CODE OF PRINCIPLES REPORT 2018
“We also reaffirm our openness to amend and improve the different parts of our code and our process. Fact-checking organizations are part of an increasingly complex information ecosystem. They too must be held accountable”. They acknowledge that they are not perfect and also need to be held accountable.
“At the moment of publication, 58 organizations have obtained the verification at least once and more than 70 organizations have applied”
HTML criteria they used displayed on archive.is: https://archive.is/gzcvC#selection-2863.1-2863.11
“We also believe it is vital to strengthen the role of users in combating disinformation. Numerous studies show that, regardless of partisan ideology, people are very good at accepting information that conforms to their preconceptions, even if it is false”.
Who keeps you accountable?
“On November 12, 2016, Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg, wrote in a post that it was “extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome” of the election “in one direction or the other”. 20 fact-checkers from around the world responded with an open letter suggesting Zuckerberg to start a conversation that could “underpin a more accurate news ecosystem on its news feed”. Soon after Zuckerberg’s letter, the technological companies launched their own efforts and projects to fight misinformation, and a year after that exchange, representatives from the main social media platforms were testifying in the American Senate after the possibility that viral misinformation had an actual influence in the presidential election”. https://archive.is/5Vw1i