4 ms·

> his content proliferates This is the root of the problem. The fact that his content is on YouTube does not imply that it will proliferate. > How are we goin

by leonvv 6y ago

> his content proliferates This is the root of the problem. The fact that his content is on YouTube does not imply that it will proliferate. > How are we going to solve it Critical thinking skills are apparently undervalued. This is a problem that is hopefully solvable by education and public debate. Even if not, the situation in which a small part of the population believes in David's ideas seems preferable to me than one in which a small group of (non democratically chosen) people decide what is acceptable content and what is not. > It's implied in the concept of a marketplace of ideas that some ideas will have value over others. I agree, but different people will have different definitions of value. > And so it seems implicit to the concept of free speech that one should have the freedom to accept or reject an idea, or try to disabuse someone of an idea you deem fallacious. I agree, but censoring someone goes much farther than to disabuse. Too far, in my opinion.

krapp 6y ago
>The fact that his content is on YouTube does not imply that it will proliferate. That's not what I meant. In a world run under free speech maximalist principles, one in which society is only allowed to debate and criticize ideas like David Icke's, but no platform is allowed to choose not to host them (because that choice amounts to censorship,) those ideas would proliferate because mere criticism and debate are not sufficient to prevent their spread. If it were, there would be no anti-vaxxers or flat earthers, or people who buy into most conspiracy theories, because those people are aware of the arguments to the contrary of their point of view, and they choose to dismiss those arguments. They don't respond to criticism with sober introspection and logic, they respond with ridicule and sometimes violence. >Even if not, the situation in which a small part of the population believes in David's ideas seems preferable to me than one in which a small group of (non democratically chosen) people decide what is acceptable content and what is not. Except Youtube isn't deciding what is acceptable for society, they are deciding what is acceptable for themselves. David Icke's delusional followers are free to continue to be deluded, but he is no longer allowed to host content on their platform. >I agree, but censoring someone goes much farther than to disabuse. Too far, in my opinion. I disagree that David Icke's been censored. He doesn't have a right to a Youtube account, any more than he has the right to break into my house and start ranting about lizard men. Youtube isn't public property just because it's on the internet. The problem is that it's impossible for the marketplace of ideas to reject anything without it being interpreted as censorship. That's a slippery slope no one wants to recognize.

by leonvv 6y ago

krapp 6y ago

>The fact that his content is on YouTube does not imply that it will proliferate. That's not what I meant. In a world run under free speech maximalist principles, one in which society is only allowed to debate and criticize ideas like David Icke's, but no platform is allowed to choose not to host them (because that choice amounts to censorship,) those ideas would proliferate because mere criticism and debate are not sufficient to prevent their spread. If it were, there would be no anti-vaxxers or flat earthers, or people who buy into most conspiracy theories, because those people are aware of the arguments to the contrary of their point of view, and they choose to dismiss those arguments. They don't respond to criticism with sober introspection and logic, they respond with ridicule and sometimes violence. >Even if not, the situation in which a small part of the population believes in David's ideas seems preferable to me than one in which a small group of (non democratically chosen) people decide what is acceptable content and what is not. Except Youtube isn't deciding what is acceptable for society, they are deciding what is acceptable for themselves. David Icke's delusional followers are free to continue to be deluded, but he is no longer allowed to host content on their platform. >I agree, but censoring someone goes much farther than to disabuse. Too far, in my opinion. I disagree that David Icke's been censored. He doesn't have a right to a Youtube account, any more than he has the right to break into my house and start ranting about lizard men. Youtube isn't public property just because it's on the internet. The problem is that it's impossible for the marketplace of ideas to reject anything without it being interpreted as censorship. That's a slippery slope no one wants to recognize.