7 ms·

> Some people, after being exposed to misinformation, chose to believe them. You missed my point :) Humans, being inherently limited, are always at risk of bei

> Some people, after being exposed to misinformation, chose to believe them. You missed my point :) Humans, being inherently limited, are always at risk of being wrong. Being wrong about things is the default state. I simply don't think that we should strive to expunge all forms of "misinformation". That is to say, of course people believe misinformation. > Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies? Ah, I see my point is easily misinterpreted. I find it very plausible (in fact, I outright believe) that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes". Rather, I think the implications of using that fact to justify suppression is inherently dangerous. Furthermore I think truth, just like the concepts of agency and free will, are useful abstractions for us to operate under. But when examined in their totality, the concepts unravel. Thus I feel that truth is local, not global, and by acting like there is a global form of truth we are only forcing our local-truth onto others in the misguided belief that we can separate truth from our individualized local contexts. Coming back down to earth for a second, the problem always remains: "who decides what truth is"?

DonHopkins 6y ago
YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit. And the Constitution decides that the truth is that the First Amendment doesn't apply to YouTube. That's an objective truth you seem to be unaware of.
- ryankemper 6y ago
  I consider your statement to really be saying the following: "According to myself, YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit."
  - DonHopkins 6y ago
    That's right, because "Lizard People" are technically "Jews", so he's not actually ranting and raving about fictitious lizards, he's ranting and raving about Jews, so maybe he's not technically objectively full of shit because Jews really exist, huh? But maybe YouTube's lawyers advised them that the First Amendment doesn't apply to them because they're not Congress, so they booted him for anti-semitism, and inciting terrorism, and being a menace to public health, among other subjective but perfectly legal and valid and morally justifiable reasons.
    - throwaway17_17 6y ago
      Just as a statement of legal fact, the First Amendment applies to more entities than Congress. Just to preempt any question, I’m not saying the First Amendment prevents YouTube from not publishing Icke’s content
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    The idea that in some cases we do not know what is true is valid. The idea that therefore we can never determine what is true and therefore must, in the name of "free speech" support and help anyone say anything is not. David Icke is not spreading information. He's spreading nonsense about lizard people. That's objectively true.
    - ryankemper 6y ago
      I personally agree that what David Icke is spreading is a bunch of nonsense. But I'm against suppressing him because otherwise I can't maintain a logically consistent belief system. That is to say, as soon as we can ban the lizard guy, we can also ban a lot more viewpoints that are not quite as controversial / outright crazy but straddle the line. And just to head this off, the dimension of palatability to advertisers is separate, and if a site chooses to quarantine or whatever, so be it. I'm speaking merely from a framework of, "is this the kind of society we want?", as opposed to, "is it feasible for a profit-seeking corporation to adopt such an open policy"?
      - DonHopkins 6y ago
        >ban the lizard guy He's not "the lizard guy", he's "the antisemitic guy". Lizards = Jews. It's not crazy speech, it's thinly disguised hate speech. Got it? Understand yet? Because all the racists do. Are you against banning the antisemitic guy or not?
        CapricornNoble 6y ago
        Not the OP, but I'm against banning the anti-Semite. I'm against banning Mein Kampf. I'm against banning the writings of Marquis de Sade. I'm against banning people who advocate for a "spectrum" of non-binary genders. An adult should be capable of consuming information from disparate sources, especially distasteful ones, and formulating logical arguments to deconstruct those positions. It takes some practice. That practice can't be done in an information vacuum. If there are deficiencies in the population's ability to perform the above, then we should be rectifying that through education (whereby I mean improving how people go about mentally solving problems), rather that scrubbing the world of "bad" data or opinions. Entrusting institutions to ban media is essentially saying "These people know what's good for you, better than you do." and I absolutely abhor that sort of arrogant, misplaced, condescension. It often comes from people who are intelligent, but nowhere near as infallible as they think they are.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Yes? I mean, Icke is the most clear-cut of examples. Otherwise you end up backing into "nobody is ever qualified to determine the truth of any statement objectively and correctly". Nihilist anti-positivism. The thing about the coronavirus is that wrong decisions, both by public health and private individuals, produce real body counts. And quite alarmingly high body counts in those countries which have embraced disinformation. (Before someone starts in on it, the Iraq war was also a body count produced by the embracing of disinformation)
- stri8ed 6y ago
  As with all such matters, its about the slippery slope, and setting precedents. The belief is, we can have our cake and eat it too. e.g. we will allow free speech, except for the egregious cases like X, Y, Z. The problem of course is, who defines egregious, and can it be objectively defined?
elbear 6y ago
Can you expand what you mean by "truth is local"? I'm asking, because I see it as the complete opposite. The rules of physics apply all over the world and outside of the planet. Yes, some patterns of reality are only found in a specific place on this planet (cultural values, for example), but things like whether COVID-19 is caused by 5G does not.

DonHopkins 6y ago

YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit. And the Constitution decides that the truth is that the First Amendment doesn't apply to YouTube. That's an objective truth you seem to be unaware of.

ryankemper 6y ago
I consider your statement to really be saying the following: "According to myself, YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit."
- DonHopkins 6y ago
  That's right, because "Lizard People" are technically "Jews", so he's not actually ranting and raving about fictitious lizards, he's ranting and raving about Jews, so maybe he's not technically objectively full of shit because Jews really exist, huh? But maybe YouTube's lawyers advised them that the First Amendment doesn't apply to them because they're not Congress, so they booted him for anti-semitism, and inciting terrorism, and being a menace to public health, among other subjective but perfectly legal and valid and morally justifiable reasons.
  - throwaway17_17 6y ago
    Just as a statement of legal fact, the First Amendment applies to more entities than Congress. Just to preempt any question, I’m not saying the First Amendment prevents YouTube from not publishing Icke’s content
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  The idea that in some cases we do not know what is true is valid. The idea that therefore we can never determine what is true and therefore must, in the name of "free speech" support and help anyone say anything is not. David Icke is not spreading information. He's spreading nonsense about lizard people. That's objectively true.
  - ryankemper 6y ago
    I personally agree that what David Icke is spreading is a bunch of nonsense. But I'm against suppressing him because otherwise I can't maintain a logically consistent belief system. That is to say, as soon as we can ban the lizard guy, we can also ban a lot more viewpoints that are not quite as controversial / outright crazy but straddle the line. And just to head this off, the dimension of palatability to advertisers is separate, and if a site chooses to quarantine or whatever, so be it. I'm speaking merely from a framework of, "is this the kind of society we want?", as opposed to, "is it feasible for a profit-seeking corporation to adopt such an open policy"?
    - DonHopkins 6y ago
      >ban the lizard guy He's not "the lizard guy", he's "the antisemitic guy". Lizards = Jews. It's not crazy speech, it's thinly disguised hate speech. Got it? Understand yet? Because all the racists do. Are you against banning the antisemitic guy or not?
      - CapricornNoble 6y ago
        Not the OP, but I'm against banning the anti-Semite. I'm against banning Mein Kampf. I'm against banning the writings of Marquis de Sade. I'm against banning people who advocate for a "spectrum" of non-binary genders. An adult should be capable of consuming information from disparate sources, especially distasteful ones, and formulating logical arguments to deconstruct those positions. It takes some practice. That practice can't be done in an information vacuum. If there are deficiencies in the population's ability to perform the above, then we should be rectifying that through education (whereby I mean improving how people go about mentally solving problems), rather that scrubbing the world of "bad" data or opinions. Entrusting institutions to ban media is essentially saying "These people know what's good for you, better than you do." and I absolutely abhor that sort of arrogant, misplaced, condescension. It often comes from people who are intelligent, but nowhere near as infallible as they think they are.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Yes? I mean, Icke is the most clear-cut of examples. Otherwise you end up backing into "nobody is ever qualified to determine the truth of any statement objectively and correctly". Nihilist anti-positivism. The thing about the coronavirus is that wrong decisions, both by public health and private individuals, produce real body counts. And quite alarmingly high body counts in those countries which have embraced disinformation. (Before someone starts in on it, the Iraq war was also a body count produced by the embracing of disinformation)
stri8ed 6y ago
As with all such matters, its about the slippery slope, and setting precedents. The belief is, we can have our cake and eat it too. e.g. we will allow free speech, except for the egregious cases like X, Y, Z. The problem of course is, who defines egregious, and can it be objectively defined?

elbear 6y ago

Can you expand what you mean by "truth is local"? I'm asking, because I see it as the complete opposite. The rules of physics apply all over the world and outside of the planet. Yes, some patterns of reality are only found in a specific place on this planet (cultural values, for example), but things like whether COVID-19 is caused by 5G does not.