4 ms·

I disagree with trying to deplatform ideas you don't agree with. Engage with them, show them the error of their thinking, but if you drive it underground you j

by eloff 7y ago

I disagree with trying to deplatform ideas you don't agree with. Engage with them, show them the error of their thinking, but if you drive it underground you just trap those people in a bubble filled with like minded people and the chance they change their mind approaches zero. Plus there is always the chance you're the one who's wrong - even if you're on the side with the widely accepted viewpoint. All innovation at least begins with a dissenting voice.

tekstar 7y ago
What if it's not an "idea", but actually a provably false statement? Sadly, it's beneficial to media companies to give provably false statements airtime because they are controverial, which drives views and clicks which drives revenue. But for society is it beneficial to let false statements have a platform?
- Cryptophunk 7y ago
  One could also argue that it is profitable to claim global warming will effect us all in, so therefore the need for carbon tax is secured. There's so many profit motives on each side it's hard to say which one is at play.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    How is a carbon tax profitable to climate scientists?
    - EricE 7y ago
      The get more grants to do research re-enforcing the effectiveness of this “solution”. You do realize scientists need salary for food, clothing, housing, health care, etc.? As with anything, follow the money. The grant systems that power our “scientific research” these days are anything but unbiased.
- jxramos 7y ago
  I guess the point is to actually, perhaps eventually, prove them false no?
- nathanaldensr 7y ago
  How many times does your tired old argument have to be refuted? Your idea only works if there is a perfect arbiter of "truth." There are nearly no truths in human existence; math probably comes closest, and yet even there look how many things in history were "true" based on knowledge of the time (Earth as the center of the universe is an obvious one). You fail to consider that humans implement rules (e.g., your movie is illegal because it's not true) and humans are fundamentally corrupt, selfish creatures.
  - tekstar 7y ago
    Your comment is a straw man attack, so perhaps cool it with the "tired old". Provably false statements do not require perfect arbtration of truth. For example, the president says something on TV, and a talking head straight-face states "that never happened". This is the current level of discourse in the USA.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      It'll never stay limited to just provably false statements. The article we're discussing is evidence enough of that.
      - p1necone 7y ago
        The article linked cites various rebuttals (by actual scientists) of what seems like a large amount of factually incorrect information in this documentary - are you saying that the documentary actually is factual?
- twomoretime 7y ago
  The vast majority of controversial statements happen to be difficult to conclusively prove. The fact that they go against consensus does not mean that they are proven. What you're actually doing when you say this is giving a select group of people power to decide what is and is not false. And that's pure, soft political power.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Yes. That benefit does have to be weighed against the harm - there are good reasons we don't let people make provably false statements to defraud or slander others. But even if we assume an effective arbiter, which should not be taken for granted here, it's very good for society that people can have spirited disagreements without calling for each other to be deplatformed.
- dbsights 7y ago
  It's too easy to confuse ideas and provably false statements. Many things we hold to be absolutely true may not be so, this has happened with many 'truths' through history, and it would be incredibly arrogant to believe that today there are none of those in the public consciousness. That's the danger in censorship, it starts with the best of intentions, to protect people from being misled by obviously wrong facts, but inevitably the opinions of the censors are confused with fact.
ceejayoz 7y ago
> Engage with them, show them the error of their thinking This tends not to work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop It takes substantially more time to debunk bullshit than it does to spew it, and you'll generally find they just move onto the next piece of bullshit with no "gee, I was wrong, I should evaluate that..." thinking.
- padseeker 7y ago
  A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on - Winston Churchill
  - SummerlyMars 7y ago
    I was familiar with this quote due to Terry Pratchett, which made me wonder where it originated. It doesn't appear to have been from Churchill[1], so the irony gave me a chuckle. [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
    - jdkee 7y ago
      Jonathan Swift it appears. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/books/famous-misquotations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/books/famous-misquotation...
- cameldrv 7y ago
  People need to place more effort on maintaining factual reputation. If someone spews bullshit once, they are on probation. If they do it twice, I don't listen to them anymore. I would really like to have this automated and work automatically throughout the web. If a reporter changes newspapers, or I'm viewing them on a different platform, it should just put a big red X through the article or something to let me know that I've found them untrustworthy. The problem is that not enough people do this, but if you are unconstrained by the truth, you can say things that are much more superficially interesting. This drives engagement, so you will be signal-boosted by social media platforms. All of the comments of people debunking you only add to the engagement, so these articles are the bread and butter of the social media profit machine.
p1necone 7y ago
There's probably 10s of thousands of crackpots making documentaries full of falsehoods out there that all sorts of "platforms" choose not to air - is that wrong too? Should we give equal airtime to each individual regardless of the merits of their ideas?

by eloff 7y ago

tekstar 7y ago

What if it's not an "idea", but actually a provably false statement? Sadly, it's beneficial to media companies to give provably false statements airtime because they are controverial, which drives views and clicks which drives revenue. But for society is it beneficial to let false statements have a platform?

Cryptophunk 7y ago
One could also argue that it is profitable to claim global warming will effect us all in, so therefore the need for carbon tax is secured. There's so many profit motives on each side it's hard to say which one is at play.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  How is a carbon tax profitable to climate scientists?
  - EricE 7y ago
    The get more grants to do research re-enforcing the effectiveness of this “solution”. You do realize scientists need salary for food, clothing, housing, health care, etc.? As with anything, follow the money. The grant systems that power our “scientific research” these days are anything but unbiased.
jxramos 7y ago
I guess the point is to actually, perhaps eventually, prove them false no?
nathanaldensr 7y ago
How many times does your tired old argument have to be refuted? Your idea only works if there is a perfect arbiter of "truth." There are nearly no truths in human existence; math probably comes closest, and yet even there look how many things in history were "true" based on knowledge of the time (Earth as the center of the universe is an obvious one). You fail to consider that humans implement rules (e.g., your movie is illegal because it's not true) and humans are fundamentally corrupt, selfish creatures.
- tekstar 7y ago
  Your comment is a straw man attack, so perhaps cool it with the "tired old". Provably false statements do not require perfect arbtration of truth. For example, the president says something on TV, and a talking head straight-face states "that never happened". This is the current level of discourse in the USA.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    It'll never stay limited to just provably false statements. The article we're discussing is evidence enough of that.
    - p1necone 7y ago
      The article linked cites various rebuttals (by actual scientists) of what seems like a large amount of factually incorrect information in this documentary - are you saying that the documentary actually is factual?
twomoretime 7y ago
The vast majority of controversial statements happen to be difficult to conclusively prove. The fact that they go against consensus does not mean that they are proven. What you're actually doing when you say this is giving a select group of people power to decide what is and is not false. And that's pure, soft political power.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Yes. That benefit does have to be weighed against the harm - there are good reasons we don't let people make provably false statements to defraud or slander others. But even if we assume an effective arbiter, which should not be taken for granted here, it's very good for society that people can have spirited disagreements without calling for each other to be deplatformed.
dbsights 7y ago
It's too easy to confuse ideas and provably false statements. Many things we hold to be absolutely true may not be so, this has happened with many 'truths' through history, and it would be incredibly arrogant to believe that today there are none of those in the public consciousness. That's the danger in censorship, it starts with the best of intentions, to protect people from being misled by obviously wrong facts, but inevitably the opinions of the censors are confused with fact.

ceejayoz 7y ago

> Engage with them, show them the error of their thinking This tends not to work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop It takes substantially more time to debunk bullshit than it does to spew it, and you'll generally find they just move onto the next piece of bullshit with no "gee, I was wrong, I should evaluate that..." thinking.

padseeker 7y ago
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on - Winston Churchill
- SummerlyMars 7y ago
  I was familiar with this quote due to Terry Pratchett, which made me wonder where it originated. It doesn't appear to have been from Churchill[1], so the irony gave me a chuckle. [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
  - jdkee 7y ago
    Jonathan Swift it appears. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/books/famous-misquotations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/books/famous-misquotation...
cameldrv 7y ago
People need to place more effort on maintaining factual reputation. If someone spews bullshit once, they are on probation. If they do it twice, I don't listen to them anymore. I would really like to have this automated and work automatically throughout the web. If a reporter changes newspapers, or I'm viewing them on a different platform, it should just put a big red X through the article or something to let me know that I've found them untrustworthy. The problem is that not enough people do this, but if you are unconstrained by the truth, you can say things that are much more superficially interesting. This drives engagement, so you will be signal-boosted by social media platforms. All of the comments of people debunking you only add to the engagement, so these articles are the bread and butter of the social media profit machine.

p1necone 7y ago

There's probably 10s of thousands of crackpots making documentaries full of falsehoods out there that all sorts of "platforms" choose not to air - is that wrong too? Should we give equal airtime to each individual regardless of the merits of their ideas?