7 ms·

You do realize that saudi arabia, china, russia, etc all have laws in place to hold newspaper editors responsible for printing "truth" right? > This is what ha

You do realize that saudi arabia, china, russia, etc all have laws in place to hold newspaper editors responsible for printing "truth" right? > This is what has kept our society well informed and critical thinking for a hundred years. What makes you think you are a well-informed and critical thinking society? Don't most danes think alike just like most saudis, chinese, russians, etc. Don't most danes think and believe whatever news/propaganda tell them to believe just like saudis, chinese, russians, etc? > This died with Facebook, YouTube and the non-editorial entertainment “news” and as a result we have anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and what not. And? Did the world end? Do you realize that there was a time when it was "truth" that the earth was flat? Do you realize that there was a time when "pro-vaxxers" were ridiculed as much as anti-vaxxers are ridiculed now? If people like you were in power, we'd never have any progress. I'm not an anti-vaxxer or a flat-earther. The easiest way to discredit them is with speech. More speech, not less. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And free speech is the best antidote to falsehoods.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
moksly 7y ago
> And? Did the world end? No, but people died needlessly.
archgoon 7y ago
> You do realize that saudi arabia, china, russia, etc all have laws in place to hold newspaper editors responsible for printing "truth" right? Yes, and Denmark too. Also, the United States has laws about lying in print as well, see for example libel laws.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  But we don't. The Russian government does not need such laws to cause trouble. Boris Nemtsov got shot in broad daylight in the centre of Moscow.
CraigJPerry 7y ago
>> Do you realize that there was a time when it was "truth" that the earth was flat? This is a bad argument that ignores the concept in the GP post, that of intent, and instead addresses an unchallenged point that humans don’t know everything yet.
FranzFerdiNaN 7y ago
You don't discredit anti-vaxxers with speech. Same with flat-earthers. Same with fascists. You know what works? De-platforming them. Not giving them a voice in the public discourse. Not taking anti-vaxxers seriously and placing them at the same level as doctors because ''both sides'' and ''free speech''. What has been proven again and again is that bad information drives out good, because it's so, so much easier to write bad information. So you need to keep a tight lid on people who spread actual bad information. If not you might end up as the US, with a reality-tv star as president.
- yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
  That's been proven? Where? Because at least anecdotally, I recall reading so many stories of people who were talked out of a cult by having better information presented to them.
  - Spare_account 7y ago
    I think if you're pushing back on the GP to ask for evidence, it is intellectually dishonest to go ahead and make your own un-founded statements. Can _you_ link to some of these stories to reinforce your point?
    - yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
      Yeah, fine. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Remini#Scientology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Remini#Scientology - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-be-opposed-to-vaccines-this-is-how-i-changed-my-mind/2019/02/11/20fca654-2e24-11e9-86ab-5d02109aeb01_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-be-opposed... - https://www.self.com/story/from-anti-to-pro-vaccine https://www.self.com/story/from-anti-to-pro-vaccine As far as challenges of the put your money where your mouth is kind, this one was pretty easy. So easy in fact, that you should take a moment to reflect on why you were so quick to get on a moral high-horse of burden of proof.
      - Spare_account 7y ago
mthoms 7y ago
Except that (1) The Danes who wrote those laws were elected by the citizens in a fair and open democracy. (2) The enforcement (presumably) falls on their judicial system. One that is transparent, progressive and highly respected around the world. (3) That Denmark has one of the lowest rates of corruption in the world. (4) That Danes are free to pursue information elsewhere (as in the entire internet) if they don't like whats available locally. But besides those things, you're right. It's just like the situation in Saudi Arabia, China and Russia. /s
- kortilla 7y ago
  > The Danes who wrote those laws were elected by the citizens in a fair and open democracy Not really comforting to a slightly smaller minority that didn’t vote for them. A democracy is not a panacea and that’s why the US has the bill of rights to raise the bar on changes to fundamental rights. > One that is transparent, progressive and highly respected around the world. By whom? People in other countries don’t give two shits about judicial interpretations of laws in another country. > That Denmark has one of the lowest rates of corruption in the world. Corruption is orthogonal to government structure. Massively oppressive regimes can operate entirely inside their own laws and not be corrupt. > That Danes are free to pursue information elsewhere (as in the entire internet) if they don't like whats available locally Are they allowed to spread said information? If not, that’s not significantly better than the arrangement in China.
- roenxi 7y ago
  Denmark has a population of 6 million people with a homogeneous culture, ethnic composition (87% Danish descent, [0]) and physical location. Many problems are going to be faced to all Danes simultaneously. It is much easier to construct a shared agreement on what is true in such an environment. That they are a democracy is less of an issue than the fact they all face a very similar environment and can probably agree with each other on what the truth is because they are all looking at the same thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark
  - Mangalor 7y ago
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
> You do realize that saudi arabia, china, russia, etc all have laws in place to hold newspaper editors responsible for printing "truth" right? We don't have any laws on the books in Russia that forbid newspapers from telling lies I am willing to bet neither does China or Saudi, because that's not needed for authoritarian censorship. Boris Nemtsov got shot in broad daylight in the centre of Moscow. They don't need laws

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

moksly 7y ago

> And? Did the world end? No, but people died needlessly.

archgoon 7y ago

> You do realize that saudi arabia, china, russia, etc all have laws in place to hold newspaper editors responsible for printing "truth" right? Yes, and Denmark too. Also, the United States has laws about lying in print as well, see for example libel laws.

ClumsyPilot 7y ago
But we don't. The Russian government does not need such laws to cause trouble. Boris Nemtsov got shot in broad daylight in the centre of Moscow.

CraigJPerry 7y ago

>> Do you realize that there was a time when it was "truth" that the earth was flat? This is a bad argument that ignores the concept in the GP post, that of intent, and instead addresses an unchallenged point that humans don’t know everything yet.

FranzFerdiNaN 7y ago

You don't discredit anti-vaxxers with speech. Same with flat-earthers. Same with fascists. You know what works? De-platforming them. Not giving them a voice in the public discourse. Not taking anti-vaxxers seriously and placing them at the same level as doctors because ''both sides'' and ''free speech''. What has been proven again and again is that bad information drives out good, because it's so, so much easier to write bad information. So you need to keep a tight lid on people who spread actual bad information. If not you might end up as the US, with a reality-tv star as president.

yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
That's been proven? Where? Because at least anecdotally, I recall reading so many stories of people who were talked out of a cult by having better information presented to them.
- Spare_account 7y ago
  I think if you're pushing back on the GP to ask for evidence, it is intellectually dishonest to go ahead and make your own un-founded statements. Can _you_ link to some of these stories to reinforce your point?
  - yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
    Yeah, fine. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Remini#Scientology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Remini#Scientology - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-be-opposed-to-vaccines-this-is-how-i-changed-my-mind/2019/02/11/20fca654-2e24-11e9-86ab-5d02109aeb01_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-be-opposed... - https://www.self.com/story/from-anti-to-pro-vaccine https://www.self.com/story/from-anti-to-pro-vaccine As far as challenges of the put your money where your mouth is kind, this one was pretty easy. So easy in fact, that you should take a moment to reflect on why you were so quick to get on a moral high-horse of burden of proof.
    - Spare_account 7y ago

mthoms 7y ago

Except that (1) The Danes who wrote those laws were elected by the citizens in a fair and open democracy. (2) The enforcement (presumably) falls on their judicial system. One that is transparent, progressive and highly respected around the world. (3) That Denmark has one of the lowest rates of corruption in the world. (4) That Danes are free to pursue information elsewhere (as in the entire internet) if they don't like whats available locally. But besides those things, you're right. It's just like the situation in Saudi Arabia, China and Russia. /s

kortilla 7y ago
> The Danes who wrote those laws were elected by the citizens in a fair and open democracy Not really comforting to a slightly smaller minority that didn’t vote for them. A democracy is not a panacea and that’s why the US has the bill of rights to raise the bar on changes to fundamental rights. > One that is transparent, progressive and highly respected around the world. By whom? People in other countries don’t give two shits about judicial interpretations of laws in another country. > That Denmark has one of the lowest rates of corruption in the world. Corruption is orthogonal to government structure. Massively oppressive regimes can operate entirely inside their own laws and not be corrupt. > That Danes are free to pursue information elsewhere (as in the entire internet) if they don't like whats available locally Are they allowed to spread said information? If not, that’s not significantly better than the arrangement in China.
roenxi 7y ago
Denmark has a population of 6 million people with a homogeneous culture, ethnic composition (87% Danish descent, [0]) and physical location. Many problems are going to be faced to all Danes simultaneously. It is much easier to construct a shared agreement on what is true in such an environment. That they are a democracy is less of an issue than the fact they all face a very similar environment and can probably agree with each other on what the truth is because they are all looking at the same thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark
- Mangalor 7y ago

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

> You do realize that saudi arabia, china, russia, etc all have laws in place to hold newspaper editors responsible for printing "truth" right? We don't have any laws on the books in Russia that forbid newspapers from telling lies I am willing to bet neither does China or Saudi, because that's not needed for authoritarian censorship. Boris Nemtsov got shot in broad daylight in the centre of Moscow. They don't need laws