3 ms·
I think part of the issue is the power of comments like yours that pretends there's a simple solution. In some conversations bad actors can gain more power in
by Flantastical 6y ago
I think part of the issue is the power of comments like yours that pretends there's a simple solution.
In some conversations bad actors can gain more power in a debate using misleading information than a good actor can by using the truth.
Most conversations, such as this one about free speech, are so complex that it's tough for a 'good actor' to offer solutions. They may discuss the pros / cons of each side, talk about where further research is needed, talk about experts that are more informed, etc. They can still offer solutions but they shouldn't be pretending an unconfident solution is complete if they really are a good actor.
Bad actors, on the other hand, can simplify the complexities. They can provide confident solutions to complex problems and do so without worrying about the information they don't know or about misleading others.
Fortunately bad actors are often weeded out in discussions, but in conversations that abuse humans fear we become more demanding of answers. Explaining to fearful people "it's complex" isn't satisfying so we become more susceptible to lies / misinformation spread by bad actors. Conversations abusing this fear / anger is where there is an argument about whether misinformation should be limited.
- manigandham 6y agoWhy is the simple solution just "pretending"? What evidence is there that a complex solution exists or works? What is the basis of the assumption that good actors are not as effective as bad actors? Why has society not devolved into chaos if that's the case? How did this work before social media and online anonymity?
- Flantastical 6y agoI would say it's pretending because it's not 100% certain to be the solution. As mentioned, the situation is incredibly complex and can't be properly argued in a one-liner. There is no evidence that a complex solution exists, but I would say it's better if you know you don't have the solution to imply uncertainty. Good actors are almost certainly more effective than bad actors. That's likely why the world hasn't devolved into chaos. But societies DO devolve into chaos, such as revolutions and wars. These also obviously take place at times when society is most fearful / angry. But it's possible that many societal wars and revolutions would be unnecessary if good actors used rational discourse to reach solutions.
- manigandham 6y ago> "Good actors are almost certainly more effective than bad actors." By your own exposition, this is the simple and effective solution that's inline with what I stated. Let freedom reign because the good already solves for the bad, and has done so for the entirety of civilization. Do we really need more?
- Flantastical 6y agoFair point. I guess part of this conversation also depends on what each of us believes society's goal should be (minimize suffering, maximize individualistic freedom, etc). My thinking is more so from a position of minimizing suffering, and that finding a way to reduce the power of bad actors may help minimize wars and other conflicts and reduce suffering. There's obviously the big counterpoint that attempts to reduce power of bad actors may lead to increased corruption that in turn worsens society that if it hadn't been attempted. But that's why this is just another example of a complex problem.
- bgorman 6y agoPeople should never be allowed to claim suffering from political speech. It is that simple in my opinion. Yes, this legally allows Nazis to hold rallies outside of a synagogue. However, in practice this rarely happens, and is arguably a benefit to society since these people (Nazis) are now outing themselves as insane. On the other hand, human history has shown that political parties will attempt to censor anything they can. We can see this with the alternative realities constructed by Fox News/MSNBC and we can see it in totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea. I am not aware of any counterexamples of a country where the government does not attempt to influence the narrative.
- digi59404 6y agoI’d also like to point out. The Nazis didn’t come to power with free speech. They came to power by silencing their opponents through force, political posturing, manipulation, and opportunistic behavior. In fact the Nazis squashed free speech in many ways, and used violence, threats, and coercion to make others silence their friends. Frankly had free speech been protected and valued by any means. We may not have had a third reich. Let the fascists speak, let them out theirselves. So that common people can distance themselves.
- wolco 6y agoTo prevent bad actors we must become just as bad or worse.
- koheripbal 6y agoI think the issue is that YouTube wants to be seen as the "creator" for the content they distribute, and therefore, all content must not contradict the brand image of Google. Alternatively, YouTube needs to put more emphasis and responsibility on the reputation of content creators and make it such that their reputation gains them visibility over time. A creator with 20 years of community determined honest reporting, should be featured more prominently than a channel that is new or has a controversial history.
- juiyout 6y agoIs bad actor bad because they use misleading information? Is good actor good because they use truth? What is good/bad actor?
- skissane 6y ago> In some conversations bad actors can gain more power in a debate using misleading information than a good actor can by using the truth. Can "actors" be neatly divided into "good" and "bad"? Who decides who is a "good actor" and who is a "bad actor"? Your judgement of who is "good" and "bad" may well differ from mine.
- mesozoic 6y agoI am offended when you say these things: Bad actors weeded abuse fear lies misinformation anger They should delete your post for sure right?
- AmericanChopper 6y agoThere is a simple solution. If you read something, and you’re offended by it, that’s your problem. The worlds full of stuff, you’re free to take offence to absolutely anything at all. Nobody has any obligation to protect you from that. The one and only place this falls over is with the concept of “obscenity”. But if that’s the only place you have to make exceptions, they are much, much easier to define.