3 ms·

To use your analogy, if I chose to remove all paintings from my wall, you would break into my house to install a painting on my wall to force it into my periphe

To use your analogy, if I chose to remove all paintings from my wall, you would break into my house to install a painting on my wall to force it into my peripheral vision. Why should someone be obliged to consume information that they've deliberately and consciously chosen to ignore? Do climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earth supporters also have the same right to present their side of the story too? And if not, who decides what information people are being forced to consume? Why can't the user decide for himself?

imgabe 7y ago
But you're not consciously choosing to ignore it. You're handing your conscious choice over to an opaque algorithm and telling it to ignore anything it deems "similar" to some content, via however the person who programmed the algorithm decided to define "similar". That is the opposite of a conscious choice to examine and reject information. > Do climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earth supporters also have the same right to present their side of the story too? Yes! They do! You don't have to read it or agree with it, but of course they have the right to express it. Freedom includes the freedom to be wrong. The Internet is not your home. Walking around the Internet with filters hiding information from you is like walking around in public with blinders on and headphones in. Sure, maybe it prevents you from feeling uncomfortable sometimes, but sooner or later you're going to get blindsided by a speeding car you didn't see.