4 ms·
I agree. Book burning is en vogue again and now there's just no more high ground left to hide. The UK, EU, US, China, Russia, as well as many east Asian and mi
by andromeduck 8y ago
I agree. Book burning is en vogue again and now there's just no more high ground left to hide.
The UK, EU, US, China, Russia, as well as many east Asian and middle eastern countries all have their own censorship laws be it for defamation, heresy/blasphemy, right to be forgotten, restrict access to adult materials, varying levels of radical/fringe speech, diy weapons, end to encryption, as well as varying levels of general political speech and news coverage. Everyone wants the big platforms to censor fake news or just speech they don't like or the government to step in and force them to do so.
If we leave all of the markets speech and expression is restricted what do we have left and where should the line be drawn? Who sets the standards?
- hydrox24 8y agoI suspect that part of the reversion to censorship is a reaction to a shift in the information environment. We've moved from a situation in which more free speech mostly meant pumping more signal into the public space to one where more free speech means pumping in more noise. The worst thing about this is how easily this mechanism can be leveraged against our inclination to madly pattern match, and, worse(?), how we pick out the signals we like more than the ones we don't. I'm not sure how to deal with this yet, but I am skeptical that total free speech is the best option right now. At least, we need to build new institutions and new media consumption habits before it becomes the best option. We need ways to deal with noise, be that individually or as communities. My inclination is to say that we should push political discussions down to the local level in order increase the signal/noise ratio while maintaining free speech.