4 ms·

That's their choice then. We have to have believe that a majority of our fellow citizens are by and large capable of overcoming such views otherwise democracy i

That's their choice then. We have to have believe that a majority of our fellow citizens are by and large capable of overcoming such views otherwise democracy itself is a failed concept. Censoring their content to bias their political views in a way you like is... extremist at best.

tombert 7y ago
Ok, I'm a little tired of this constantly coming up; it's not a political position to rebut something that is objectively incorrect. If Party A bases its platform on the idea that "All Circles Are Secretly Squares", this is objectively false, and me saying so isn't me "biasing their political views in a way I like", it's a simple matter of fact. The earth is not flat. This is relatively easy to prove, but people can be influenced by the right rhetoric, and they vote. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to believe in dumb things from a legal perspective, I just don't think they're entitled to a platform. Would you apply this logic to ISIS recruitment videos? "It's their choice! YouTube shouldn't pull their videos because if they do democracy has failed as a concept!"
- buildzr 7y ago
  > I'm a little tired of this constantly coming up Perhaps then you shouldn't have made it into a political position by suggesting that they'd all vote for a specific candidate. > This is relatively easy to prove, but people can be influenced by the right rhetoric, and they vote. It's a bit of a trusting trust exercise - you can prove it in a way that satisfies you, but that doesn't necessarily satisfy everyone. > Would you apply this logic to ISIS recruitment videos? Much more debatable because ISIS videos encourage outright violence.
  - tombert 7y ago
    I didn't say they'd all vote for a specific candidate, but based on what you're telling me, this is the logical conclusion: 1) People don't vote based on their beliefs, 2) Beliefs can't be wrong, 3) A vote based on a wrong belief can't lead to an undesirable candidate.
    - buildzr 7y ago
      That's a complete and utter misrepresentation of what I said and I have no interest in engaging it.
      - tombert 7y ago
        I didn't say that's what you said, I said that's the logical conclusion.
denom 7y ago
If we expose people to the most sophisticated system of disinformation ever created in the history of mankind, with no restrictions or supervision of any kind, and then watch democracy collapse, it's not enough to to say "Welp! Democracy is a failed concept". This is not about censorship. This is about each of use trying to help educate, uplift and enlighten those around us. In other words, it's up to us to help our fellow citizens. If you want to punt on that project, then so be it. But not all of us have given up.
- buildzr 7y ago
  > the most sophisticated system of disinformation ever created in the history of mankind The exact same system is used for spreading that information too. Adding your personal bias into the system is not a "fix" for disinformation.
pjc50 7y ago
No, it is absolutely necessary to control the spread of racial slander and similar forms of hate, because those have got people killed. From the Holocaust to Rwanda to Myanmar, once the lies about the evil of X racial group reach a critical level the violence starts and can be inflamed into a self-sustaining cycle of violence.
- buildzr 7y ago
  This is off topic as we're talking about flat earth here, but I'll engage it anyways: Are you suggesting that a lack of access to such information is the only thing stopping such genocides from occurring? You think this is a realistic level of faith in humanity to hold?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Why is it unreasonable to think that people act on the information they receive? That is after all how normal politics works. If people talk about how bad the potholes are in the roads, someone will demand that something is done about the potholes. If people talk about how Jews eat the blood of children, someone will demand that something is done about the Jews. It's not sensible to say "lack of information about X is the only thing stopping Y from happening" because that can be true of an infinite number of falsehoods. Lack of information about the riches of Atlantis is a major factor in people not setting off into the sea. And so on.
    - buildzr 7y ago
      Isn't it also reasonable to think that people consider the information they take in? Testability is key to most strong beliefs and I like to think that the majority of the population is not so firmly rooted that they refuse to update their views based on evidence to the contrary. Sure, a few crazy people may choose to believe that Jews eat the blood of children, but I hope that in a free society where information to the contrary is readily available it will not impact a significant enough portion of the population to cause the sorts of genocides you're suggesting.
sabertoothed 7y ago
It's not censoring as much as school is not censoring. Some things are just factually, objectively wrong and unsupported by evidence.

tombert 7y ago

Ok, I'm a little tired of this constantly coming up; it's not a political position to rebut something that is objectively incorrect. If Party A bases its platform on the idea that "All Circles Are Secretly Squares", this is objectively false, and me saying so isn't me "biasing their political views in a way I like", it's a simple matter of fact. The earth is not flat. This is relatively easy to prove, but people can be influenced by the right rhetoric, and they vote. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to believe in dumb things from a legal perspective, I just don't think they're entitled to a platform. Would you apply this logic to ISIS recruitment videos? "It's their choice! YouTube shouldn't pull their videos because if they do democracy has failed as a concept!"

buildzr 7y ago
> I'm a little tired of this constantly coming up Perhaps then you shouldn't have made it into a political position by suggesting that they'd all vote for a specific candidate. > This is relatively easy to prove, but people can be influenced by the right rhetoric, and they vote. It's a bit of a trusting trust exercise - you can prove it in a way that satisfies you, but that doesn't necessarily satisfy everyone. > Would you apply this logic to ISIS recruitment videos? Much more debatable because ISIS videos encourage outright violence.
- tombert 7y ago
  I didn't say they'd all vote for a specific candidate, but based on what you're telling me, this is the logical conclusion: 1) People don't vote based on their beliefs, 2) Beliefs can't be wrong, 3) A vote based on a wrong belief can't lead to an undesirable candidate.
  - buildzr 7y ago
    That's a complete and utter misrepresentation of what I said and I have no interest in engaging it.
    - tombert 7y ago
      I didn't say that's what you said, I said that's the logical conclusion.

denom 7y ago

If we expose people to the most sophisticated system of disinformation ever created in the history of mankind, with no restrictions or supervision of any kind, and then watch democracy collapse, it's not enough to to say "Welp! Democracy is a failed concept". This is not about censorship. This is about each of use trying to help educate, uplift and enlighten those around us. In other words, it's up to us to help our fellow citizens. If you want to punt on that project, then so be it. But not all of us have given up.

buildzr 7y ago
> the most sophisticated system of disinformation ever created in the history of mankind The exact same system is used for spreading that information too. Adding your personal bias into the system is not a "fix" for disinformation.

pjc50 7y ago

No, it is absolutely necessary to control the spread of racial slander and similar forms of hate, because those have got people killed. From the Holocaust to Rwanda to Myanmar, once the lies about the evil of X racial group reach a critical level the violence starts and can be inflamed into a self-sustaining cycle of violence.

buildzr 7y ago
This is off topic as we're talking about flat earth here, but I'll engage it anyways: Are you suggesting that a lack of access to such information is the only thing stopping such genocides from occurring? You think this is a realistic level of faith in humanity to hold?
- pjc50 7y ago
  Why is it unreasonable to think that people act on the information they receive? That is after all how normal politics works. If people talk about how bad the potholes are in the roads, someone will demand that something is done about the potholes. If people talk about how Jews eat the blood of children, someone will demand that something is done about the Jews. It's not sensible to say "lack of information about X is the only thing stopping Y from happening" because that can be true of an infinite number of falsehoods. Lack of information about the riches of Atlantis is a major factor in people not setting off into the sea. And so on.
  - buildzr 7y ago
    Isn't it also reasonable to think that people consider the information they take in? Testability is key to most strong beliefs and I like to think that the majority of the population is not so firmly rooted that they refuse to update their views based on evidence to the contrary. Sure, a few crazy people may choose to believe that Jews eat the blood of children, but I hope that in a free society where information to the contrary is readily available it will not impact a significant enough portion of the population to cause the sorts of genocides you're suggesting.

sabertoothed 7y ago

It's not censoring as much as school is not censoring. Some things are just factually, objectively wrong and unsupported by evidence.