In the midst of the debate about freedom, it's tempting to revisit the 5th century BC, during the great democratic revolution. War has empowered the demos And dialogue is a new strategy for reaching agreements. Power can no longer be limited to imposing reality. More equitable understandings are needed. Power is redistributed, society is rebalanced. Thus begins the great Sophist debate: the preeminence of Physis (natural law) or the Nomos (human law).
Physis It is governed by very basic principles: the pursuit of maximum pleasure and the power of force. The strongest impose their will and, therefore, their freedom is absolute. It is the law of the jungle. NomosIn contrast, it is the order based on agreement. It controls the Physis and regulates the whole. Nomos It guarantees distributive freedom: a certain degree of freedom for everyone, not just the strongest.
The debate is heating up. Some oppose the Nomos Precisely because it restricts the freedom of the 'best'. Thrasymachus goes so far as to identify justice with what is most advantageous to the strongest. On the other hand, Protagoras and other Sophists defend democracy, human and written law, the product of agreement, which organizes, redistributes... It is protection against abuse and a guarantee against tyranny. Nomos It is not a prison, but a tool of civilization. The intellectual clash is enormous: the tension between accepting (and suffering) how things are or deciding for ourselves how we want them to be.
In light of current debates, it seems we're still at the same point. But without the excuse of our Greek colleagues, who hadn't experienced the harshness of the 25 centuries that separate us.
It highlights the current success of the Trumpian version of freedom – I will not accept any limits: I do what I want because I am stronger than you – and how it is applauded by a clearly emerging movement: the deregulating and authoritarian far right – democracy bothers me, because the limits that protect you condition my saint.
But what is more worrying is the identification of 'regulation' with 'coercion' made by a segment of the left, which naively invokes a 'primitive freedom', without limits, regulations, or hierarchical values. Rousseauian whims, not very advisable when fascism is already in...
We are all probably victims of an unfortunate, original metaphor: viewing the internet as an idyllic public square. It sounds good, but it's false.
A public square is a safe space, well-lit day and night, protected by regulations and ordinances, patrolled by the police and watched over by residents, with regular maintenance and inspections, and with approved furnishings, authorized hours, and regulated activities. People are free in the square precisely because everything is regulated and their safety and participation are guaranteed. That's why we like squares, but the internet isn't.
For now, the internet resembles more a pitch-black labyrinth with countless branches and unsettling doors. Or a dangerous jungle ruled by disturbing figures like Elon Musk and Pavel Durov, always brandishing freedom as both shield and weapon, and protecting business, crime, and anonymity in the name of that supposed freedom. technoligarchs That, in the midst of democratic disintegration, it is permissible to insult institutions and their legitimate representatives. Postmodernity is going through a chainsaw phase: total deregulation.
The possibility of establishing a minimum age for accessing social media has saturated the public debate in recent weeks with all sorts of arguments—anecdotal or substantive—although even those who oppose regulation admit that these platforms distort our perception of reality with hidden criteria, that they are controlled by monopolies, and that they steal our data and attention by exploiting our weaknesses. Around the same time, the EU condemned TikTok for its addictive design based on infinite screens, autoplay, and notifications.push' and an aggressive recommendation system.
One of the recurring criticisms of the measure is its impossibility of implementation. The same impossibility that once plagued the progressive restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, especially among minors.
A ban is a highly significant measure, wielding considerable coercive power, but also educational value. Legitimate and justified regulation—and this is one—produces a notable transfer of control to other spheres: familial, social, cultural... Beyond the realm of the police or the courts, the ban will generate a logical process of self-regulation, and we will soon be shocked to have lived through a time when it was normal to give a pacifier and a mobile phone to a three-year-old. Or so I hope.
