3 ms·

>In a healthy democracy, there are appropriate mechanisms that hold censors accountable than the average layman, so that they do not abuse their office. For thi

>In a healthy democracy, there are appropriate mechanisms that hold censors accountable than the average layman, so that they do not abuse their office. For this reason they are granted a louder voice. The majority of the world does not live under healthy democracies. That the west is copying this failed model is concerning.

jhanschoo 7y ago
This counterargument isn't fatal to my point, though I tailored it to the parent comment (re: censors). There are people who can be more easily held accountable for their words, and people for whom it is difficult, or inappropriate, to punish for spouting false information. The responsible broadcaster amplifies the words of people that can be held accountable, and amplifies voices of people that cannot be held accountable only cautiously, and inside certain framed mindset (e.g. reported speech, call out lies, provide a contrasting perspective by a person who can be more easily be held accountable). With respect to social media, it is clear that it is inappropriate and impossible to hold most laypeople accountable for spreading false information, and so it is responsible broadcasting to only amplify these voices to a limited extent. I think that it is clear to you that I don't support unconditional free broadcast of factual claims in the Internet age, but one where one's reach must be matched by how much they have staked on the correctness of their information, proportional to the severity of the issue they are weighing in on.
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  I would welcome us holding the gatekeepers to higher standards. The only people in the media fired for the debacle of the Iraq war were the ones who called the lies of the government out. When we let everyone speak at least the average of all the lies is closer to the truth than when we let only one lie through.

jhanschoo 7y ago

This counterargument isn't fatal to my point, though I tailored it to the parent comment (re: censors). There are people who can be more easily held accountable for their words, and people for whom it is difficult, or inappropriate, to punish for spouting false information. The responsible broadcaster amplifies the words of people that can be held accountable, and amplifies voices of people that cannot be held accountable only cautiously, and inside certain framed mindset (e.g. reported speech, call out lies, provide a contrasting perspective by a person who can be more easily be held accountable). With respect to social media, it is clear that it is inappropriate and impossible to hold most laypeople accountable for spreading false information, and so it is responsible broadcasting to only amplify these voices to a limited extent. I think that it is clear to you that I don't support unconditional free broadcast of factual claims in the Internet age, but one where one's reach must be matched by how much they have staked on the correctness of their information, proportional to the severity of the issue they are weighing in on.

buzzkillington 7y ago
I would welcome us holding the gatekeepers to higher standards. The only people in the media fired for the debacle of the Iraq war were the ones who called the lies of the government out. When we let everyone speak at least the average of all the lies is closer to the truth than when we let only one lie through.