site banner
PaperclipPerfector  17hr ago (text post)   2789 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

US subpoenas tech companies for private messages of European officials enforcing the DSA: the Trump admin is criticing European governments for censoring speech, which is...true, and not just "hate speech" but sometimes just criticing politicians.

Oh, snap. I was sitting on an effortpost on the subject, but never got around to finishing it. Since you're bringing it up, I'll just dump the draft I had stored:

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Europe and a shared core value with the United States across the democratic world.

Some of you might scoff at these words if you've been keeping tabs at what's going on in Europe. Some might scoff even harder upon realizing they come from a statement from the European Comission responding to Trump's travel sanctions against Commissioner Thierry Breton, who sent a letter to Elon Musk, threatening him with regulatory retaliation, ahead of his interview with Trump. But even if you were familiar with that situation, when you find out how deep this rabbit hole goes, it might turn out all that scoffing is nowhere near enough

Recently the House Judiciary Committee released a report on EU laws' impact on American political speech. They subpoena'd the major platforms for documentation on the measures they took to comply with EU regulations, and the results were quite illuminating. One of the responses to the Twitter Files story was that it's a nothingburger. Private companies came up with private terms for using their private platform, and the government was essentially just pushing the "report" button. We've had plenty of conversations about whether that is an accurate portrayal of the situation, but aside from that, it now looks like the core premise of that response is wrong. The platforms' terms of service weren't established on their own accord, but rather under pressure from the European Commission. From the report:

starting in 2015 and 2016, the European Commission began creating various forums in which European regulators could meet directly with technology platforms to discuss how and what content should be moderated. Though ostensibly meant to combat "misinformation" and "hate speech," nonpublic documents produced to the Committee show that for the last ten years, the European Commission has directly pressured platforms to censor lawful, political speech in the European Union and abroad.

The EU Internet Forum (EUIF), founded in 2015 by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG-Home), was among the first of these initiatives. By 2023, EUIF published a "handbook ... for use by tech companies when moderating" lawful, non-violative speech such as:

  • "Populist rhetoric";
  • "Anti-government/anti-EU" content;
  • "Anti-elite" content;
  • "Political satire";
  • "Anti-migrants and Islamophobic content";
  • "Anti-refugee/immigrant sentiment";
  • "Anti-LGBTIQ . . . content"; and
  • "Meme subculture."

Now, some might say that just because an official government body invited some companies to have a friendly conversation about moderating their platforms, doesn't mean any pressure is actually being put on them, but the problem with that theory is that the companies themselves weren't under that impression. The report contains examples of emails such as this one from Google:

...co-chairs set the agenda under (strong) impetus from the EU Commission; decision is taken by "consensus" -- but consensus can be heavily pressed by the EC, if they disagree where it's going.

or:

The EC is opening the GAI subgroup under the Code of Practice. I assume we want to join (we don't really have a choice), but do we also want to co-chair it?

or one from TikTok about adding rules against "marginalizing speech and behaviour", and various forms of "misinformation":

This update, which was advised by the legal team, is mainly related to compliance with the Digital Services Act

Now, maybe this is just a case of overzealous bureaucrats throwing their weight around to push their private agenda? Despite the letter of support for Breton after Trump's sanctions, the official line was that was acting without authorization, so maybe this is was also the case here? Well, maybe, but said bureaucrats really wanted to make it seem like this is all done with the blessing of the top brass. For example an email from an EC official representatives at Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Bytedance signed off with:

Given the urgency, I take the liberty to use this informal channel but I want to assure you that I am addressing you with the agreement of the Vice-President (who is cooperating on this with [redacted] and [redacted]) and the knowledge of the President.

Personally, I think this casts doubt on the claims about Breton as well.

The executive summary of the report isn't a long read, and has receipts for a few other dramas like the Romanian elections.

Now, some might say that just because an official government body invited some companies to have a friendly conversation about moderating their platforms, doesn't mean any pressure is actually being put on them, but the problem with that theory is that the companies themselves weren't under that impression.

One reason tech companies might form that impression is because regulatory bodies seem to be developing a habit of giving off that impression even when without exercising formal power. Recently, in eSafety Commissioner v Baumgarten, the Australian eSafety Commissioner had been revealed to be sending "informal requests" to X using X's legal requests portal, and then turning around and claiming to the Administrative Review Tribunal that the decisions were not reviewable because they weren't exercising formal powers granted to the Commissioner.

https://www.auspublaw.org/home/2026/3/the-government-is-not-the-same-as-us-esafety-commissioner-v-baumgarten-2026-fcafc-12-gwdak

The Baumgarten case reveals that the Commission has gone beyond its statutory mandate by working to limit online speech that it considers harmful or otherwise problematic, but that falls below the thresholds set in the statute. Ms Baumgarten posted a video on X which was critical of a Melbourne primary school teacher for organising a ‘Queer Club’ for students. The post named the teacher, but did not identify any children. The eSafety Commission received a complaint about the post. The complaint was considered by Samantha Caruana, an official within the eSafety Commission, who had no delegated authority to compel social media services to remove posts. Ms Caruana concluded that the post probably did not amount to ‘cyber-abuse material’ for the purposes of s 7 of the Online Safety Act. Despite her conclusion, Ms Caruana filled in a form on X’s ‘Legal Requests Portal’ asking that the post be taken down. The eSafety Commission’s request referred to s 7 of the Online Safety Act as authority for the request.

Ms Baumgarten sought review of the eSafety Commission’s ‘decision’ to order the removal of her post in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (which was replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) during the course of her case). Section 220 of the Online Safety Act provides for a right to seek merits review of the Commissioner’s decisions to issue removal notices. But the Commission argued that Ms Baumgarten had no right to challenge the decision in the Tribunal, because it had not made a removal decision under s 88. Rather, the Commission argued, it had simply made a request of X that it remove the post. Thus, the Commission argued, that there was no ‘decision’ for the Tribunal to review and it had no jurisdiction.

The Commissioner's argument was rejected by the ART and the appeal rejected by the Federal Court of Australia.

My general impression is that Europe doesn’t respect free speech the way we do in the United States. For example, in England, one RooshV was banned from entering England (even for getting on a connecting flight) because he expressed views the leaders of England disagreed with.

I think a strong case that a lot of the online censorship (e.g. not allowing people to have frank discussions about Trans rights—and, yes it’s Reddit’s trans rights discussion censorship which drove The Motte to have their own website instead of remaining on Reddit) we saw in the late 2010s and early 2020s was partly a result of EU overreach. Indeed, Twitter/X doesn’t censor the way most other major social media platforms do, and they were hit with a huge fine from the EU late last year, and I feel the EU unfairly targeted Twitter/X because that platform allows people to express views which get people banned on other platforms.

For one, I’m glad this site is here to allow frank discussions. Yeah, it can be right-learning, but considering a lot of mainstream right-wing views are straight up suppressed and silenced on other platforms, it’s no surprise right wing people flock to the relatively few platforms which allow frank open discussion.

I’m saying all this as a classic liberal.

Has there ever in history been a government that implemented any speech restrictions that didn't spread to broad criticism of the ruling party?

Arguably Singapore? It’s legal to criticize the people’s action party despite not being super-pro-free speech in general.

They might not honor it perfectly in the breech, I suppose.

IANAS, but my impression of Singapore was that criticism of the party (ideally constructive criticism) was accepted, but that criticism of prominent individuals faced very harsh and sometimes politicized libel laws. Not bad as they go.

The US? say what you will about America, the first amendment is amazing. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the ruling party".

Edit1: There has been certain attempts, like the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, but overall the first amendment has been a strong stalwart against government overreach.

I think the first amendment reinforces my point: it has no speech restrictions. Narrow exceptions only exist outside, yet even they've been twisted (e.g. prosecuting Communists for "planning to overthrow the government" in Dennis v. United States).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I suspect that speech hasn't been prosecuted more in the US because children are taught this first, then exceptions later, so they're generally biased against exceptions.

In 1969, Dennis was de facto overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Took 18 years, but that's a short time compared to the long history of a country.

I suspect that speech hasn't been prosecuted more in the US because children are taught this first, then exceptions later, so they're generally biased against exceptions.

Yes, makes sense, the freedom is broad, so the exceptions are "the exceptions that prove the rule".

I feel Americans are far too quick to congratulate themselves on the topic of freedoms and rights. Not only has the US government worked to censor in recent years using big tech as a proxy, it has also done so historically, such as with the case of Schenck v. United States, Charles Coughlin, McCarthyism or COINTELPRO and similar.

If the government was the owner of all major communications platforms, then yeah, the first amendment would technically be super relevant. But when American law is willing to leverage the right of a single company owner to censor speech as being equal to the right of millions of people to express themselves on that companies platform, you have a state of affairs that is effectively no different from not having any free speech rights at all. Which is exactly the case for anyone wanting to color outside the lines of American powers that be. Maybe not by putting you in jail, as is the case in Europe. But via indirect means, such as with the examples given earlier or suddenly not having a bank account or not being able to freely choose an airline or host a website by any normal means.

I think a secondary part is that what a lot of Americans believe doesn't seem to matter a whole lot. And even if that wasn't the case, American media has had such a stranglehold on the public that it's not as if there was ever going to be a risk of anyone believing anything truly heterodox to begin with. And if that were ever a likely case, the American government can and has stepped in to get ahead of those movements. The sheer mass of the American media and political system has been too great for any popular grass roots movement to budge it until, arguably, 2016 Trump arrived.

But even after Trump, TPTB have learned their lesson, are course correcting and we are now only celebrating 'free speech' in America because a South African bought twitter.

  1. As pointed out by @ChickenOverlord, Americans and their speech is so so so much free-er than other countries that sometimes I feel Americans don't get congratulated enough for it
  2. Yes, that's right, the question was about government overreach. Being able to does not mean it has to be easy. And yeah, the difficulty with getting your ideas and thoughts across to others is part of the friction of communication. I'm not sure what is being asked here, are you asking that political belief is to be a protected class and private companies should not use that as an excuse to offer/not-offer products and services? Either way, if people want their speech heard, nothing prevents them from taking over or recreate what they need.
  3. What Americans believe matters a whole lot. Trump's 2.0 victory is complete vindication of how what the median American thinks matters and led the country to what they want. Feels like every other presidency can be easily characterized as "newcomer with grassroots momentum that trounced the elite favorite".
  4. So the freedom of the people worked. An American, with the means and opportunities to make a change, made a change! He certainly didn't stay in South Africa to do that. He did what he did with Twitter because he had ideological and philosophical values, very American ones if I might add, that drove his actions.

I feel Americans are far too quick to congratulate themselves on the topic of freedoms and rights.

Not at all. Our track record is far from perfect, but we still somehow manage to completely eclipse every other country on earth when it comes to speech rights, in spite of our failures and shortcomings. We can call our politicians idiots without getting arrested [1], and in the rare cases when cops have overreached for that sort of thing the courts have shut it down.

1: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-over-online-insult/a-70793557

That's a comparison revolving around being the cleanest pig in the sty. If the culmination of the freedom loving spirit of Americans can't reach beyond comparing themselves to the Germans then the point, that Americans are far too quick to congratulate themselves on the topic of freedom and rights, is very much made.

The Germans, thé UK, the Canadians, in fact most of Europe…

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats