Skidelsky says-

'Information has to be structured to become knowledge. Institutions like schools, universities, newspapers, and political parties have been our traditional structuring devices.'

Skidelsky was born in China. During the 1960's, China had institutions- schools, universities, newspapers and a political party which structured information. Was that information of good quality? No. It was a bunch of stupid vicious lies.



Skidelsky may believe that Britain has always had very wonderful schools and universities and newspapers and political parties which structured information in a benign way. This is not true. He himself studied at a school were homosexuality was presented as a terrible crime against nature. The Universities and the newspapers and the main political parties played along with this notion.



Skidelsky's faith in Institutions is touching. Yet Institutions propagated vicious lies like the 'Protocols' he mentions. Why is he being so naive?

He says-

'But digital technology is institutionally naked. It provides no structuring mechanism, and therefore no control on the spread of knowledge-free opinion.'

This is quite false. Digital technology permits digital institution building. Some are relatively benign and alethic, some are not. But so it has always been.



Skidelsky says-

'Democracy depends both on the right to free speech and the right to know.'



This is quite false. Democracy under the Rule of Law permits, at times demands, reasonable restrictions on speech. Similarly, there a right to privacy, a right to avoid self-incrimination, a right to trade secrets and a right to tell busybodies to go away, which greatly restricts this supposed 'right to know'.

Why is Skidelsky denying this obvious fact? Well, the answer is that he wants to say something quite shocking-



'We may have no alternative but to strike a new balance between the two'. (i.e. this right to free speech and the right to know)

This is completely mad. It shows no sign of 'critical thinking' at all. There can be no balance or trade-off between two incompossible things.



Skidelsky believes Trump is a liar. Perhaps he is. But the US Constitution has provided a remedy which American legislators well understand. If we have evidence Trump has committed perjury, we don't need to 'strike a balance between imaginary things' as part of some supposed 'critical thinking'. We can submit that evidence to the proper statutory body. That is common sense.