5 ms·

that person didn't realize the damage propaganda could do with modern tools. Unfortunate reality is our cognitive biases can be exploited, and complete freedom

that person didn't realize the damage propaganda could do with modern tools. Unfortunate reality is our cognitive biases can be exploited, and complete freedom of speech is not in the best interest of the majority of humanity. This is a "loophole" that is exploited over and over again by climate change denialists, cigarette companies, nazis...

brenden2 6y ago
Yeah, and just imagine what politicians could get away with if they had laws that allowed them to prevent people from speaking their mind.
- luckydata 6y ago
  This absolutism is unnecessary. Plenty of modern democratic countries have limits on acceptable speech (France, Sweden to give you a couple examples) and they are not less democratic than the US (I would argue they are more). Limiting speech within agreed boundaries is not problematic as long as it's a decision taken with a good criteria and with a good goal in mind. It's no different than any other decision we make on how we setup society.
  - brenden2 6y ago
    What is or isn't acceptable at the time is largely a matter of fashion and opinions. As an example, have a look at the ALA's compiled list of banned books (some of which are banned for ridiculous reasons): http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/FieldReport_Download%20%282%29.pdf http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/con...
VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
> complete freedom of speech is not in the best interest of the majority of humanity isn't this one if the founding principles of chinas brutal totalitarian dictatorship
- luckydata 6y ago
  no.
  - VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
    it is
dntbnmpls 6y ago
> that person didn't realize the damage propaganda could do with modern tools. No that person did. It's precisely why he was against censorship. Propaganda is rather useless without censorship. It's why china, north korea, nazi germany, etc had censorship. > This is a "loophole" that is exploited over and over again by climate change denialists, cigarette companies, nazis... Right. Imagine if cigarette companies and nazis had the power to censor... Your comment is actually in support of free speech but you are so blinded by agenda that you can't see it. Nazis supported censorship and used your exact reasoning to censor. Think about it. The chinese government uses your exact reasoning to censor. Think about it.
xf1cf 6y ago
I don't think anyone is arguing about the damage of propaganda here. The discussion here is more-or-less Youtube choosing which propaganda it wishes people to see. To use your idea here - the cognitive biases being exploited are being exploited by youtube itself. In this example, Icke is a relatively divisive character even on the right wing. So it becomes important to ask - of the controversial figures that remain (on both sides) what cognitive biases is Google/Youtube aiming to exploit by allowing them to continue?
- gdulli 6y ago
  The most dangerous mindset of this era is the fallacy of symmetry. That the wrongs of one side are qualitatively and quantitatively mirrored in the other, only in different forms. If we're not allowed to entertain that one side might simply be wrong enough to need its own correction, then we allow it to continue to march off the cliff. Dragging the overton window down with it. It is simply not a given that the existence of a piece of propaganda implies that the absence of it (or intolerance of it) is equivalent to propaganda for another side. If I'm corrected from claiming 1+1=2, the other side rests on more than propaganda.
zozbot234 6y ago
"Modern" tools are anything but. Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, and to some extent thereafter (less so as civil-society norms developed, and a shared sense for "reasonable" political advocacy along with those), extremist pamphlets, chapbooks and other printed materials pushing outlandish conspiracy theories were incredibly common. Anyone advocating for freedom of the press would've been familiar with the stuff.

brenden2 6y ago

Yeah, and just imagine what politicians could get away with if they had laws that allowed them to prevent people from speaking their mind.

luckydata 6y ago
This absolutism is unnecessary. Plenty of modern democratic countries have limits on acceptable speech (France, Sweden to give you a couple examples) and they are not less democratic than the US (I would argue they are more). Limiting speech within agreed boundaries is not problematic as long as it's a decision taken with a good criteria and with a good goal in mind. It's no different than any other decision we make on how we setup society.
- brenden2 6y ago
  What is or isn't acceptable at the time is largely a matter of fashion and opinions. As an example, have a look at the ALA's compiled list of banned books (some of which are banned for ridiculous reasons): http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/FieldReport_Download%20%282%29.pdf http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/con...

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago

> complete freedom of speech is not in the best interest of the majority of humanity isn't this one if the founding principles of chinas brutal totalitarian dictatorship

luckydata 6y ago
no.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  it is

dntbnmpls 6y ago

> that person didn't realize the damage propaganda could do with modern tools. No that person did. It's precisely why he was against censorship. Propaganda is rather useless without censorship. It's why china, north korea, nazi germany, etc had censorship. > This is a "loophole" that is exploited over and over again by climate change denialists, cigarette companies, nazis... Right. Imagine if cigarette companies and nazis had the power to censor... Your comment is actually in support of free speech but you are so blinded by agenda that you can't see it. Nazis supported censorship and used your exact reasoning to censor. Think about it. The chinese government uses your exact reasoning to censor. Think about it.

xf1cf 6y ago

I don't think anyone is arguing about the damage of propaganda here. The discussion here is more-or-less Youtube choosing which propaganda it wishes people to see. To use your idea here - the cognitive biases being exploited are being exploited by youtube itself. In this example, Icke is a relatively divisive character even on the right wing. So it becomes important to ask - of the controversial figures that remain (on both sides) what cognitive biases is Google/Youtube aiming to exploit by allowing them to continue?

gdulli 6y ago
The most dangerous mindset of this era is the fallacy of symmetry. That the wrongs of one side are qualitatively and quantitatively mirrored in the other, only in different forms. If we're not allowed to entertain that one side might simply be wrong enough to need its own correction, then we allow it to continue to march off the cliff. Dragging the overton window down with it. It is simply not a given that the existence of a piece of propaganda implies that the absence of it (or intolerance of it) is equivalent to propaganda for another side. If I'm corrected from claiming 1+1=2, the other side rests on more than propaganda.

zozbot234 6y ago

"Modern" tools are anything but. Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, and to some extent thereafter (less so as civil-society norms developed, and a shared sense for "reasonable" political advocacy along with those), extremist pamphlets, chapbooks and other printed materials pushing outlandish conspiracy theories were incredibly common. Anyone advocating for freedom of the press would've been familiar with the stuff.