4 ms·
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 becaus
by tekstar 6y 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 6y agoOne 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 6y agoHow is a carbon tax profitable to climate scientists?
- EricE 6y agoThe 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 6y agoI guess the point is to actually, perhaps eventually, prove them false no?
- nathanaldensr 6y agoHow 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 6y agoYour 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 6y agoIt'll never stay limited to just provably false statements. The article we're discussing is evidence enough of that.
- p1necone 6y agoThe 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 6y agoThe 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 6y agoYes. 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 6y agoIt'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.