After every tragic shooting in the United States, politicians blurt the same knee-jerk responses and take their canned solutions off the shelf. Then the talking heads argue over gun-control for a day or two, and everyone throws up their hands at how politically difficult it is. And no one looks at actual causes and so never considers any potential solutions.
Part of the difficulty is that everyone thinks our Constitution prohibits making laws for the common good if they also restrict speech, commerce, or weapons of war. Part is actually understanding the causes. How culpable is Reddit or YouTube, for example, for constructing a platform that rewards some behaviors more than others? Perhaps algorithmically-modified content makes any social media platform liable for the behavior of its users. Perhaps personalization by way of, for example, the “like” button, or targeted advertising, is sufficient to make the purveyor of such things culpable for the behavior of anyone subjected to it. The Marketing Department does, after all, argue that advertisements will increase sales. That is, that they *can* change behavior. And, if they can change behavior, and if the behavior changes, who’s to say they aren’t guilty?
I read this article: It convinced me to act. The author succeeded in his intent. Should he not also share the blame? If someone in your friend group incites you to riot, is he not also at fault? If a doctor makes a suggestion, and you follow through on it, is it not also, in some respect, his act?
What if it is an ideology, a set of ideas, which makes something seem not only likely but desirable? Who to blame for an idea, particularly one that all the Right People share?
There might be a chilling effect. That’s OK. Those with authority and power should exercise prudence and restraint.