3 ms·
It's not like it's 2 alternatives of content we're talking about, one legitimate and one not. I think it's more that there's legitimate content that's constantl
by sillysaurus3 11y ago
It's not like it's 2 alternatives of content we're talking about, one legitimate and one not. I think it's more that there's legitimate content that's constantly getting interference from this extraneous and meaningless noise.
It's important to remember that such abstractions enable you to reject the content you don't personally see as meritorious as unwholesome. And that's a sure way to fool oneself. Rewind the clock a hundred years and you might be arguing for prohibition. It's also classic no true Scottsman, for what it's worth.
One's noise is another's music. Why is it there if no one finds it helpful?
A better distinction is mistaken or not mistaken.
- nileshtrivedi 11y ago> Why is it there if no one finds it helpful? OP had a good answer: Negative externality.
- remarkEon 11y ago-> One's noise is another's music. Why is it there if no one finds it helpful? Sure, but I'm not talking about subjective opinions about content. I'm talking about the other things interfering with my ability to consume the content I'm trying to consume. And I don't think that this is a classic "no true Scottsman" in that sense. I'm not making any statement about what is or isn't true internet content (because obviously that would be silly). Perhaps my word choice of "legitimate" was unwise in that way.