4 ms·

There's no free speech if the guy is lying on purpose on public issues. You're entering propaganda territory.

by afrcnc 6y ago

oyashirochama 6y ago
That's a slippery and dangerous road to say whats propaganda and whats right speech, and saying propaganda isn't allowed is like saying you can't have the government give announcements either.
ryankemper 6y ago
Are you saying that I am entering propaganda territory, or instead that David Icke is/was? The meaning is not clear to me, although I assume you are referring to myself. Again, the distinction here is that I don't think being wrong (even if you think it's intentional) is something we should try to suppress. And the reason I think that is because right/wrong is ultimately a value judgement, and thus opens the door for equally flawed individuals to castigate a viewpoint as false while conversely spreading their own falsehoods (which they themselves view as truth). As far as advertising revenue is concerned, I understand that business incentive. So, if they want to use Reddit's quarantine concept - or even boot them off their platform as they are doing now - they're free to do so, but I don't think that it's the _right_ thing to do. In other words, we can agree that a business is acting in its own self-interest and thus would want to get rid of these types of people. I believe that they have the legal authority to do so, as well as all the incentives. But where I don't agree is that I don't cheer them on when they do it. Rather I think it's very dangerous. So in other words, I suspect the difference between our beliefs here is that you are cheering on YouTube for doing this. You're (correctly) seeing that David Icke is a total fucking wacko and saying to yourself "good riddance". I certainly understand that inclination. I just don't believe in it myself, for the reasons that I've outlined. (I hope I haven't mischaracterized you there - sorry if I did)
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  Do you believe that YouTube has an obligation to publish objective, demonstrable lies that harm people? What about cryptocurrency scams, what about media co-coordinating assassinations of targets they don't like?
  - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
    Yes
ars 6y ago
> There's no free speech if the guy is lying on purpose on public issues. Yes. There is. If you only have free speech for things other people think are true, that's hardly free speech. > You're entering propaganda territory. Absolutely, and yet, free speech means you can do that.

There's no free speech if the guy is lying on purpose on public issues. You're entering propaganda territory.

by afrcnc 6y ago

There's no free speech if the guy is lying on purpose on public issues. You're entering propaganda territory.

That's a slippery and dangerous road to say whats propaganda and whats right speech, and saying propaganda isn't allowed is like saying you can't have the government give announcements either.

ryankemper 6y ago

Are you saying that I am entering propaganda territory, or instead that David Icke is/was? The meaning is not clear to me, although I assume you are referring to myself. Again, the distinction here is that I don't think being wrong (even if you think it's intentional) is something we should try to suppress. And the reason I think that is because right/wrong is ultimately a value judgement, and thus opens the door for equally flawed individuals to castigate a viewpoint as false while conversely spreading their own falsehoods (which they themselves view as truth). As far as advertising revenue is concerned, I understand that business incentive. So, if they want to use Reddit's quarantine concept - or even boot them off their platform as they are doing now - they're free to do so, but I don't think that it's the _right_ thing to do. In other words, we can agree that a business is acting in its own self-interest and thus would want to get rid of these types of people. I believe that they have the legal authority to do so, as well as all the incentives. But where I don't agree is that I don't cheer them on when they do it. Rather I think it's very dangerous. So in other words, I suspect the difference between our beliefs here is that you are cheering on YouTube for doing this. You're (correctly) seeing that David Icke is a total fucking wacko and saying to yourself "good riddance". I certainly understand that inclination. I just don't believe in it myself, for the reasons that I've outlined. (I hope I haven't mischaracterized you there - sorry if I did)

throwaway2048 6y ago
Do you believe that YouTube has an obligation to publish objective, demonstrable lies that harm people? What about cryptocurrency scams, what about media co-coordinating assassinations of targets they don't like?
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago
  Yes

ars 6y ago

> There's no free speech if the guy is lying on purpose on public issues. Yes. There is. If you only have free speech for things other people think are true, that's hardly free speech. > You're entering propaganda territory. Absolutely, and yet, free speech means you can do that.