> Well we already know, if you put the ideas of Galileo, > Copernicus and Kepler next to those of the Church, and > allow the people to figure things out for

> Well we already know, if you put the ideas of Galileo, > Copernicus and Kepler next to those of the Church, and > allow the people to figure things out for themselves, it > takes a few hundred years. I think that's a false equivalence. The Church actively tried to hide their work and were essentially state censors (over multiple states). Not only this, but the work of Galileo for example essentially threw doubt on people's core beliefs. I don't think Breitbart can be seen as powerful as the Church was. > And most often those paths of learning, involve violence > and domination by both sides. That's a miserable outlook on your fellow man, I choose to believe people are fundamentally rewarded for selecting good ideas over bad, which is why society seems to work. Ironically, it's groups that supposedly exist to fight violence and bad ideas who are the first to engage in it. > They need to be filtered out irrespective of being on the > left or right. How on earth do you create such a filter and manage it? Say you let the government control the filter, do you really trust any government whom gets into power to control such an important filter? How about a private company? Is there any group out there you really trust to control what news source/stories you get to see? If there was some 100% perfect way of achieving this - I would back it every day. The problem is, if there is a way to game/corrupt a system, there appears to always be people willing to do so. I believe that in the face of their not being a better solution, we should let the individual decide.