.png)
Bubble Wrap Society
It's quite satisfying, that gentle pop beneath your fingers. The tension release of bursting bubble wrap - it's become almost therapeutic, hasn't it? From protecting our parcels to calming our nerves, bubble wrap serves its purpose. But imagine living your entire life encased in it. Every step cushioned, every impact softened, every potential hurt wrapped away in layers of protective plastic.
We're building that society right now.
Not with physical bubble wrap, mind you, but with something far more restrictive: the systematic wrapping of ideas, discourse, and debate in layers of protective censorship. From trigger warnings on centuries-old literature to the sanitisation of academic discussions, we're packaging our intellectual life in protective layers, desperately trying to prevent any possible harm.
The intention is noble enough. After all, who doesn't want to protect vulnerable people from harm? The summer of 2023 saw the UK's Online Safety Act finally pass through Parliament after five years of debate - a well-meaning attempt to make the internet safer and one I wholeheartedly support. Yet (and please hear me out that I am not decrying this work) in our rush to wrap everything in protective layers, we might be creating something far more dangerous: a society too fragile to handle reality.
There is a worrying paradox in society right now: despite unprecedented efforts to control harmful content, misinformation spreads faster than ever. Despite increased content moderation, conspiracy theories flourish. Despite cancel culture's attempts to silence harmful views, extreme ideologies gain ground. It's as if our protective measures are having the opposite effect - like antibacterial soap creating superbugs, our attempts at protection may be breeding more resilient forms of the very things we're trying to prevent.
There's a better way, in my humble opinion. Instead of wrapping society in layers of censorship, what if we focused on strengthening its immune system? What if the real antidote to bad information isn't silence, but better information?
ADD IMAGE - claxon
The Protection Paradox
When historian David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel in 2000, challenging her right to call him a Holocaust denier, the British courts faced a choice. They could have simply silenced Irving, wrapped his dangerous ideas in legal bubble wrap. Instead, something remarkable happened in that London courtroom. Lipstadt and her team methodically dismantled Irving's claims with better information - facts, documents, expert testimony. They didn't just win the case; they created a public record of truth that stands to this day. It was brilliantly portrayed in Denial. Watch the trailer below but I strongly recommend watching it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH7ktvUWaYo
This case illuminates a crucial truth: attempting to protect people through censorship often backfires spectacularly. Consider how Britain's Section 28, which banned the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools from 1988 to 2003, didn't protect children - it just drove discussions underground and caused real harm to vulnerable young people. When it was finally repealed, what changed minds wasn't censorship of opposing views, but better information about the reality of LGBTQ+ lives.
The philosopher John Stuart Mill, who I loved to teach about in my A-Level Philosophy classes, warned us about this in On Liberty. He argued that silencing an opinion robs humanity twice: if the opinion is right, we lose the opportunity to exchange error for truth; if it's wrong, we lose the greater truth, produced when it collides with error (what a beautiful concept!) Mill wasn't suggesting all opinions are equal - he was pointing out that truth grows stronger through challenge, not protection.
“But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” John Stuart Mill
Today's social media platforms face similar dilemmas. When Facebook or Instagram ban accounts for challenging mainstream narratives, those ideas don't vanish - they often resurface on alternative platforms, stronger for their martyrdom, wrapped in a narrative of censorship and persecution. The forbidden becomes more tempting, more persuasive for being banned.
What history consistently shows us is that institutional attempts to control information often age poorly. From the Church's persecution of Galileo to modern examples of institutional narrative control, the pattern repeats: censorship doesn't just fail to protect truth - it often ends up protecting falsehood instead.
ADD IMAGE - Galileo
The Cancel Culture Conundrum
Does anyone remember when debate meant actually debating? Today, disagreement increasingly means demands for de-platforming, sackings, and public shaming. We've traded the art of argument, constructive discourse, for the blunt instrument of erasure.
Take the case of Kathleen Stock, a professor forced out of Sussex University not for spreading misinformation, but for asking philosophical questions about gender identity. Or consider J.K. Rowling, whose views on women's rights led not to reasoned debate but to attempts to erase her name from the very books she created. Whatever one's position on these controversies (and I certainly have mine), surely the response to challenging ideas shouldn't be to wrap them in a blanket of silence?
The term 'cancel culture' itself has become almost meaningless through overuse. There's a world of difference between facing consequences for genuinely harmful actions and being professionally destroyed for expressing an unpopular opinion. When we blur this line, we create a chilling effect on public discourse. Academics admit to self-censoring. Journalists avoid controversial topics. Comedians skip university gigs, wary of causing offence.
This isn't accountability - it's intellectual asphyxiation.
Whatever you think of Ricky Gervais, he makes this point in his most recent stand-up show, Supernature, disputes that “words are actual violence”. Now, I am not advocating for his position on many things but the idea that words can be equal to physical violence does not make much sense, in my humble opinion.
Another philosopher, Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" is often misused to justify this approach. People quote his argument that a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance, but they rarely finish the thought. Popper wasn't advocating censorship; he argued for meeting intolerant philosophies with rational argument and public debate. The key was maintaining the right to suppress them if necessary, while preferring the weapons of reason and discourse.
“In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.” Karl Popper
What we're seeing instead is the weaponisation of vulnerability. Claiming offence or harm has become a trump card, automatically shutting down discussion. But here's the painful irony: in trying to protect people from challenging ideas, we're creating a generation less equipped to handle them. It's like raising children in a sterile environment - they never develop the antibodies needed to face real-world pathogens.
ADD IMAGE - intellectual asphyxiation
Vulnerability vs Resilience
I think there is a good analogy when it comes to two saplings. One grows in a greenhouse, protected from every breeze. The other faces the elements, developing a strong root system and flexible branches. Which tree will better weather a storm?
The same principle applies to ideas and discourse. When we rush to protect people from challenging thoughts, we deny them the opportunity to develop intellectual resilience. It's a pattern we're seeing play out in universities, where concepts like microaggressions and trigger warnings, though well-intentioned, often create what psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls "fragile self-concepts" rather than robust mental health. The antidote may be what Nassim Nicholas Taleb means when he talks about being Antifragile.
Consider the contrast between two approaches to dealing with extremist ideologies. When the BNP's Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time in 2009, many demanded the BBC cancel his appearance. Instead, the programme went ahead, and Griffin's ideas withered under scrutiny. His performance was so poor that BNP support actually declined afterwards. Meanwhile, attempts to ban Tommy Robinson, Andrew Tate or even Jordan Peterson (albeit perhaps less controversially than the others!) have arguably made them more influential among their followers, not less.
Hannah Arendt, who faced real fascism, not the X variety, argued that the best defence against dangerous ideologies was the development of critical thinking - what she called:
"the habit of examining and reflecting upon anything that happens to come to pass." Hannah Arendt
This isn't about leaving vulnerable people unprotected; it's about equipping them with better armour than bubble wrap.
Real resilience comes from exposure to challenging ideas under supportive conditions. It's the difference between learning to swim in shallow water, with a swimming teacher versus never going near a pool. The former builds confidence; the latter ensures perpetual vulnerability.
This isn't just philosophical theory. The Prevent programme, aimed at stopping radicalisation, has found that individuals most resistant to extremist ideology aren't those who've been sheltered from it, but those who've been taught to critically engage with and challenge it.
ADD IMAGE - information ecosystem
The Information Ecosystem
Imagine walking into a supermarket where every label lies, where pricing is manipulated hourly based on your browsing history, and where the most profitable items - not the most nutritious - are pushed to eye level. Welcome to today's information environment.
Our information ecosystem is sick. Not because of any single virus of misinformation, but because the very soil it grows in has been contaminated. Social media algorithms prioritise engagement over accuracy. Headlines are crafted for clicks rather than clarity. News organisations, desperate for survival, chase shares instead of truth. The idea of Newspeak has unfortunately anthropomorphised from 1984.
It’s like newspapers that chase X, which chases newspapers, in an endless dance of manufactured outrage. It's a dance that leaves us dizzy, disoriented, and increasingly unable to distinguish fact from fiction.
But here's where the bubble wrap brigade gets it wrong. Their solution - more content moderation, more censorship, more protection from "harmful" content - is like trying to cure soil contamination by covering the entire garden in plastic. It might stop new pollutants, but it also stops anything healthy from growing.
The parallel with natural ecosystems is instructive. When faced with environmental degradation, successful restoration projects don't just remove pollutants - they reintroduce native species, rebuild soil health, and restore natural processes. Our information ecosystem needs similar holistic rehabilitation.
It might be worth looking at Finland's approach to information literacy. Rather than relying on censorship, they've integrated critical thinking and digital literacy into their national curriculum from primary school onwards. Their 'multi-literacy' approach helps students question sources, understand bias, and navigate digital information. While not a perfect solution, it represents an attempt to build resilience rather than rely on restrictions. It reminds me of the piece I wrote about CRAAP from the University of California, Chico.
INSERT IMAGE
This is proper ecosystem management, not bubble wrap solutions. It's about building an environment where truth has natural advantages over lies, where quality information can outcompete manipulation.
Better Information in Practice
"The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not less." This old civil liberties argument sounds quaint in our age of information overload. After all, how can truth compete when lies travel halfway around the world before fact-checkers have got their laptops open?
ADD IMAGE - microphones
But look closer at successful challenges to misinformation. Private Eye has spent decades exposing corruption not through censorship, but through meticulous investigation and clear presentation of evidence (usually in a comedic manner). They don't just say "that's wrong" - they show why, how, and what's actually happening instead.
Consider organisations like Full Fact. Rather than demanding removal of false claims, they provide tools for verification, explain complex topics clearly, and teach people how to spot dodgy statistics. Their approach recognises that people aren't stupid - they're busy. Give them accessible, reliable information and most will prefer it to conspiracy theories.
The key is making better information more accessible than bad information. When the Flat Earth movement gained traction, physicist Brian Cox didn't call for censorship. Instead, he and others created engaging content explaining how we know the Earth is round, turning complex science into compelling narratives that spread further than the original nonsense.
INSERT YOUTUBE SHORT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImLdmCXcTf0
But here's the crucial bit: better information doesn't mean just facts and figures. It means better storytelling, better presentation, better engagement with human psychology. The anti-vax movement gained power partly because they told better stories than public health officials. They created narratives about caring parents protecting their children, while official communications often felt cold and bureaucratic. Again, I am not saying they were right. But in order to prove anti-vaxxers wrong, we can’t just plead the ad hominem, straw man or even tilting at windmills fallacies.
This isn't about "lowering" discourse to compete with sensationalism. It's about recognising that humans are narrative creatures. The truth needs to be not just accessible but engaging. As George Orwell noted,
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” George Orwell
Key Takeaways
1. The first and most crucial step is training rather than restraining. Our educational systems need to prioritise critical thinking and media literacy not as optional extras, but as core survival skills for the digital age. We must create environments where people can practise handling difficult discussions, not hiding from them. This means fundamentally rethinking how we prepare people for a world of competing narratives and complex information.
2. Quality information must become our weapon of choice against misinformation. Rather than rushing to censor poor information, we need to invest in making good information more accessible, more engaging, and more trustworthy. This means supporting investigative journalism, fact-checking organisations, and clear communication of complex topics. When truth is both accessible and compelling, it naturally outcompetes falsehood.
3. We can only rebuild trust through genuine transparency. Our institutions must learn to show their working, acknowledge their uncertainties, and engage in real dialogue rather than managed narratives. When organisations admit mistakes and explain their thinking, they build credibility that no amount of controlled messaging can achieve. This requires a fundamental shift from information control to information sharing.
4. A more nuanced understanding of harm must guide our responses. Not everything that makes us uncomfortable is harmful, and not everything harmful requires censorship to address. By developing better frameworks for understanding different levels of harm, we can focus protective measures where they're truly needed while allowing space for challenging discussions. This means moving beyond binary thinking about safety and danger.
5. Above all, we must champion resilience over restriction. This means creating environments where ideas can be tested safely, where questioning is encouraged rather than silenced, and where intellectual immunity can develop naturally through exposure to diverse viewpoints. Just as physical strength develops through exercise, not inactivity, intellectual resilience grows through engagement, not avoidance.
The Choice Before Us
A society wrapped in bubble wrap might feel safe, but it can never truly thrive. Like a muscle that atrophies without use, minds protected from every challenging idea become weak, unable to resist genuine threats when they appear. The evidence surrounds us: despite unprecedented efforts to control information, extremist ideas flourish. Despite attempts to protect people from offensive speech, our public discourse grows more fragile, not more robust.
But there's hope in this crisis. Every day, people demonstrate their capacity to handle complex ideas when given the tools and trust to do so. We see it in classrooms where teachers encourage rather than shut down difficult discussions. We see it in media outlets that trust their audiences with nuanced reporting rather than simplified narratives. We see it in online communities that foster genuine debate rather than echo chambers.
The choice isn't between absolute freedom and total control - it's between building resilience and enforcing fragility. Between treating people as capable of growth or perpetual children needing protection. Between a society that can handle disagreement and one that shatters at the first sign of conflict.
We started with bubble wrap - that satisfying pop of plastic protection. But perhaps it's time for a different sensation: the bracing feel of fresh air on bare skin, the slight discomfort that comes with growth, the vitality of minds engaging directly with the world around them.
After all, the most valuable ideas, like the most valuable things, don't need bubble wrap. They need room to breathe, space to grow, and the freedom to prove their worth in the open air of public discourse.
Further Reading
Discover more interesting articles here.
