6 ms·

You know what is worse than fake news ? A government suppressing speech. Who decides what is fake and what isn't ? This is what despotism looks like. It stems f

by camus2 10y ago

You know what is worse than fake news ? A government suppressing speech. Who decides what is fake and what isn't ? This is what despotism looks like. It stems from good intentions at first then gets abused because people in charge will always abuse their power to silence the people.

jaredtking 10y ago
> Who decides what is fake or what isn't ? Ministry of Truth?
IfOnlyYouKnew 10y ago
> You know what is worse than fake news ? Spaces before punctuation? > Who decides what is fake or what isn't ? Courts. > This is what despotism looks like. No, despotism is what despotism looks like. > It looks like good intentions at first then gets abused[...] That's just the slippery slope fallacy. It doesn't work as an argument because it's too broad. I. e. "now they're outlawing shooting at people, next thing you know, you can't even shoot the breeze anymore"
- wyager 10y ago
  Being snarky about the GP's spacing is not argumentatively useful. Courts deciding whether or not you're allowed to say something is only marginally better than other government officials deciding whether or not you're allowed to say something. Slippery slope is only a fallacy in the strict Boolean sense. It's a perfectly useful heuristic in Bayesian reasoning. In particular, it speaks to the effects of shifting the Overton Window.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    The courts have consistently failed to find any objective standard for "obscenity". There's no reason to believe they would do any better for "truth". One man's art is another man's porn, one man's truth is another man's propaganda.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
onli 10y ago
Germany as a country – and its constitution – does not subscribe to that US-american view of unregulated free speech. Never did, and has a healthy free press anyway.
- trendia 10y ago
  Are you referring to the healthy free press that intentionally suppressed information about mass sexual assault on NYE 2016?
  - onli 10y ago
    All media reported that. A suppression of information just did not happen. If you really believe that, start to consume other media than AFD-nazi-talk please.
    - trendia 10y ago
      The news reported it nearly two weeks after it happened, when reports were already saturating social media and word of mouth.
      - onli 10y ago
        That's again not true. ARD reported on the 4th of January, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuelle_%C3%9Cbergriffe_in_der_Silvesternacht_2015/16#Verz.C3.B6gerte_Berichterstattung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuelle_%C3%9Cbergriffe_in_de.... ZDF followed on the 5th.
- Grue3 10y ago
  Germany is also a country that murdered millions of people in concentration camps less than a century ago. Which happened because National Socialists were suppressing views opposed to their own. So maybe, just maybe, unregulated free speech was a good idea after all.
  - onli 10y ago
anotherarray 10y ago
Your statement is completely ideological and blank of any actual argumentation. Answer the question: Is it bad to "suppress speech" that is a threat to "free speech" itself?
- WalterBright 10y ago
  Yes, it is.
  - anotherarray 10y ago
    It's an example of ideological self-destructive universal. Take freedom of speech, social justice, progress,... as an universal and it's ultimately destructive (to believers and itself).
    - rvern 10y ago
      It isn't. Speech that advocates the removal of free speech rights is unlikely to be successful and actually lead to the removal of free speech. Speech is only speech. It cannot do anything by itself. The only way speech can affect the world is by urging people to do things that they would not have done otherwise.
    - noblethrasher 10y ago
      The concern is about an epistemic gap: We proabaly can’t know how to identify speech that is harmful to free-speech, and the cost of getting it wrong is likely to be tremendous in almost all cases.
nodesocket 10y ago
Germany does not view free speech like the US does. For example, to this day anything related to Nazism is illegal. You can be arrested and fined for giving the Nazi salute. Germany likes to pick and choose their free speech now a day.

by camus2 10y ago

jaredtking 10y ago

> Who decides what is fake or what isn't ? Ministry of Truth?

IfOnlyYouKnew 10y ago

> You know what is worse than fake news ? Spaces before punctuation? > Who decides what is fake or what isn't ? Courts. > This is what despotism looks like. No, despotism is what despotism looks like. > It looks like good intentions at first then gets abused[...] That's just the slippery slope fallacy. It doesn't work as an argument because it's too broad. I. e. "now they're outlawing shooting at people, next thing you know, you can't even shoot the breeze anymore"

wyager 10y ago
Being snarky about the GP's spacing is not argumentatively useful. Courts deciding whether or not you're allowed to say something is only marginally better than other government officials deciding whether or not you're allowed to say something. Slippery slope is only a fallacy in the strict Boolean sense. It's a perfectly useful heuristic in Bayesian reasoning. In particular, it speaks to the effects of shifting the Overton Window.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  The courts have consistently failed to find any objective standard for "obscenity". There's no reason to believe they would do any better for "truth". One man's art is another man's porn, one man's truth is another man's propaganda.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

onli 10y ago

Germany as a country – and its constitution – does not subscribe to that US-american view of unregulated free speech. Never did, and has a healthy free press anyway.

trendia 10y ago
Are you referring to the healthy free press that intentionally suppressed information about mass sexual assault on NYE 2016?
- onli 10y ago
  All media reported that. A suppression of information just did not happen. If you really believe that, start to consume other media than AFD-nazi-talk please.
  - trendia 10y ago
    The news reported it nearly two weeks after it happened, when reports were already saturating social media and word of mouth.
    - onli 10y ago
      That's again not true. ARD reported on the 4th of January, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuelle_%C3%9Cbergriffe_in_der_Silvesternacht_2015/16#Verz.C3.B6gerte_Berichterstattung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuelle_%C3%9Cbergriffe_in_de.... ZDF followed on the 5th.
Grue3 10y ago
Germany is also a country that murdered millions of people in concentration camps less than a century ago. Which happened because National Socialists were suppressing views opposed to their own. So maybe, just maybe, unregulated free speech was a good idea after all.
- onli 10y ago

anotherarray 10y ago

Your statement is completely ideological and blank of any actual argumentation. Answer the question: Is it bad to "suppress speech" that is a threat to "free speech" itself?

WalterBright 10y ago
Yes, it is.
- anotherarray 10y ago
  It's an example of ideological self-destructive universal. Take freedom of speech, social justice, progress,... as an universal and it's ultimately destructive (to believers and itself).
  - rvern 10y ago
    It isn't. Speech that advocates the removal of free speech rights is unlikely to be successful and actually lead to the removal of free speech. Speech is only speech. It cannot do anything by itself. The only way speech can affect the world is by urging people to do things that they would not have done otherwise.
  - noblethrasher 10y ago
    The concern is about an epistemic gap: We proabaly can’t know how to identify speech that is harmful to free-speech, and the cost of getting it wrong is likely to be tremendous in almost all cases.

nodesocket 10y ago

Germany does not view free speech like the US does. For example, to this day anything related to Nazism is illegal. You can be arrested and fined for giving the Nazi salute. Germany likes to pick and choose their free speech now a day.