4 ms·

Open platforms for discussion are actually one of the best ways to prevent something like the Nazi party from coming into power. And if the Nazi party did come

by nilkn 9y ago

Open platforms for discussion are actually one of the best ways to prevent something like the Nazi party from coming into power. And if the Nazi party did come into power, you would not expect there to be impartiality in any major discussion forums in the nation. Example: A lot of folks are flabbergasted at /r/The_Donald, but I've always contended that that subreddit exists and developed into its current culture precisely because right-leaning opinions are treated so harshly on most of the rest of reddit. In other words, there was a feeling of suppression and censorship, which leads to the sort of high-energy, irreverent "shit-posting" that is the mainstay of /r/The_Donald.

anon1385 9y ago
I'm not at all convinced that this actually works. It's a nice liberal idea and it would be great if it worked but the evidence doesn't look good. The US media thought they were doing everybody a favour by giving Trump loads of airtime to expose his awful views. It backfired massively. I think the biggest problem is that it only works when the other side is willing to play by the rules of the game. If the opposition is willing to blatantly lie even in the face of direct evidence then the normal rules of debate just break down. (I know all politicians lie, but Trump's disregard for political norms is completely different from what you got from candidates like McCain, Obama, Romney or Bush). Similarly from a UK perspective giving disproportionate coverage to UKIP and Farage just increased their popularity.
- nilkn 9y ago
  > The US media thought they were doing everybody a favour by giving Trump loads of airtime to expose his awful views. Isn't this just an example of the same phenomenon I was describing? Sure, they gave him airtime, but it was virtually never positive. There was a tremendous lack of impartiality in the media's coverage of the two candidates. This led to the idea of "fake news" and ended up boosting his supporters even more, giving them reason to band together. I dare say the outcome of the election could have been different if the media had spent less time trying to demonize Trump and simply reported equally on the two candidates with minimal editorializing.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Trump did very few positive things, so I don't think it's really a fault of "impartiality" if the coverage of him isn't that positive.
    - nilkn 9y ago
      I think what Trump himself did is actually irrelevant to the point I'm making. If Trump did many negative things and few positive things, then all news publications need to do is simply report on what he's doing and leave it at that. No editorializing should be necessary. There shouldn't be any need for him to receive 2-3x as much coverage as Clinton. There shouldn't be a need for major news organizations to officially endorse this or that candidate. What's so hard about trusting viewers and readers to come to their own conclusions based on honest, simple, accurate, and exhaustive reporting of events and facts?
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        "I think what Trump himself did is actually irrelevant to the point I'm making." It's not. They're reporting on what Trump did. If that's mostly negative, then the coverage is, by necessity, going to be mostly negative. You wouldn't be upset that most of the coverage now of Harvey Weinstein or Louis C.K. is negative, would you? "If Trump did many negative things and few positive things, then all news publications need to do is simply report on what he's doing and leave it at that." That's what they did. "There shouldn't be a need for major news organizations to officially endorse this or that candidate." That's been a tradition for editorial boards for a long time. Note: That's the editorial, or opinion board. Not the newsroom. "What's so hard about trusting viewers and readers to come to their own conclusions based on honest, simple, accurate, and exhaustive reporting of events and facts?" Well, for one, everyone knew the same things about Trump, and yet he was elected. But you're really going to have to prove that what you're asking for didn't happen.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  So you are in favor of fascism as long as it takes your side and smothers the 'awful views' and 'blatant liars' of the opposition, as defined by you, I assume.
michaelt 9y ago
Open platforms for discussion are actually one of the best ways to prevent something like the Nazi party from coming into power. I used to think that, but my views have become more complicated given allegations like [1] I agree that public discussion is a powerful tool for changing people's political opinions - but if I think I'm reading a discussion between your peers when I'm actually reading a discussion between two Kremlin trolls, it puts the powerful tool in the hands of people who don't have my best interests in mind. It's a tough problem to solve - most of the 'obvious' solutions like real name policies I think come with a lot of downsides. [1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kvvz3/russian-facebook-trolls-got-people-to-protest-against-each-other-in-texas https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kvvz3/russian-fa...

by nilkn 9y ago

anon1385 9y ago

I'm not at all convinced that this actually works. It's a nice liberal idea and it would be great if it worked but the evidence doesn't look good. The US media thought they were doing everybody a favour by giving Trump loads of airtime to expose his awful views. It backfired massively. I think the biggest problem is that it only works when the other side is willing to play by the rules of the game. If the opposition is willing to blatantly lie even in the face of direct evidence then the normal rules of debate just break down. (I know all politicians lie, but Trump's disregard for political norms is completely different from what you got from candidates like McCain, Obama, Romney or Bush). Similarly from a UK perspective giving disproportionate coverage to UKIP and Farage just increased their popularity.

nilkn 9y ago
> The US media thought they were doing everybody a favour by giving Trump loads of airtime to expose his awful views. Isn't this just an example of the same phenomenon I was describing? Sure, they gave him airtime, but it was virtually never positive. There was a tremendous lack of impartiality in the media's coverage of the two candidates. This led to the idea of "fake news" and ended up boosting his supporters even more, giving them reason to band together. I dare say the outcome of the election could have been different if the media had spent less time trying to demonize Trump and simply reported equally on the two candidates with minimal editorializing.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Trump did very few positive things, so I don't think it's really a fault of "impartiality" if the coverage of him isn't that positive.
  - nilkn 9y ago
    I think what Trump himself did is actually irrelevant to the point I'm making. If Trump did many negative things and few positive things, then all news publications need to do is simply report on what he's doing and leave it at that. No editorializing should be necessary. There shouldn't be any need for him to receive 2-3x as much coverage as Clinton. There shouldn't be a need for major news organizations to officially endorse this or that candidate. What's so hard about trusting viewers and readers to come to their own conclusions based on honest, simple, accurate, and exhaustive reporting of events and facts?
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      "I think what Trump himself did is actually irrelevant to the point I'm making." It's not. They're reporting on what Trump did. If that's mostly negative, then the coverage is, by necessity, going to be mostly negative. You wouldn't be upset that most of the coverage now of Harvey Weinstein or Louis C.K. is negative, would you? "If Trump did many negative things and few positive things, then all news publications need to do is simply report on what he's doing and leave it at that." That's what they did. "There shouldn't be a need for major news organizations to officially endorse this or that candidate." That's been a tradition for editorial boards for a long time. Note: That's the editorial, or opinion board. Not the newsroom. "What's so hard about trusting viewers and readers to come to their own conclusions based on honest, simple, accurate, and exhaustive reporting of events and facts?" Well, for one, everyone knew the same things about Trump, and yet he was elected. But you're really going to have to prove that what you're asking for didn't happen.
creaghpatr 9y ago
So you are in favor of fascism as long as it takes your side and smothers the 'awful views' and 'blatant liars' of the opposition, as defined by you, I assume.

michaelt 9y ago

Open platforms for discussion are actually one of the best ways to prevent something like the Nazi party from coming into power. I used to think that, but my views have become more complicated given allegations like [1] I agree that public discussion is a powerful tool for changing people's political opinions - but if I think I'm reading a discussion between your peers when I'm actually reading a discussion between two Kremlin trolls, it puts the powerful tool in the hands of people who don't have my best interests in mind. It's a tough problem to solve - most of the 'obvious' solutions like real name policies I think come with a lot of downsides. [1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kvvz3/russian-facebook-trolls-got-people-to-protest-against-each-other-in-texas https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kvvz3/russian-fa...