3 ms·
I want to respectfully disagree with you. The kernel of your argument here is that the speech in question is a matter of disagreement. It's important to define
by myhnaccount2 6y ago
I want to respectfully disagree with you. The kernel of your argument here is that the speech in question is a matter of disagreement. It's important to define what kind of speech we're talking about here, because everyone might mean something different.
To be clear, we are talking about verifiably false speech. Verifiably false speech that is sufficiently amplified can have serious consequences. This is unequivocally NOT a matter of differing opinions. And, yes, I understand that there is a huge gray area as to what is "verifiably false", but it's still a standard that we should strive for. Misinformation is a serious problem that is arguably responsible for tens of thousands dying in the US from COVID just in the past few months. This is not a game.
I can't say for sure if you're framing the question as partisan bickering in good faith, but if you are I want you to consider how flat out lies and half truths can have extremely dangerous effects. All sources of misinformation are dangerous, but it is undeniable that one "side" traffics in misinformation in much, much higher volume (at least an order of magnitude). Anyways, the point is the problem is not simple and anyone claiming such is oversimplifying at best and being disingenuous at worst.
- whymauri 6y agoI'm with you on this. In the past 150 years, pseudoscientific disciplines like eugenics and phrenology have directly led to the deaths of millions of people. Geographic determinism and 19th-century racial "science" directly led to the subjugation, abuse, and exploitation of tens of millions of people. Just two years ago, misinformation and falsified news fueled a genocide through Facebook. You're 100% correct: this is not a game. We have frameworks for verifying truth, in science and journalism - that truth can safe lives.
- logicchains 6y ago>pseudoscientific disciplines like eugenics and phrenology have directly led to the deaths of millions of people >Just two years ago, misinformation and falsified news fueled a genocide through Facebook. All this was done by governments (Hitler, Myanmar government), and you want to give governments more power to control what people can do/say online?
- whymauri 6y agoThis is a misreading of what I've said that is so egregious that I cannot reply assuming you're writing in good faith.
- dgzl 6y agoThe Ministry of Truth is never wrong!
- s_y_n_t_a_x 6y agoBrought to you by the Ministry of Truth. If you don't see our stamp on it, it's not true! > All sources of misinformation are dangerous, but it is undeniable that one "side" traffics in misinformation in much, much higher volume I'll blow your mind, but from a conservative perspective, it's Dems lying constantly. Both sides can pepper truth in with lies. The best solution is to think for yourself. Being hyperbolic and screaming it'll save lives doesn't help win anyone over either, you'll have to try harder to trick people out of their freedoms.
- aantthony 6y agoI agree with you this is important. > verifiably false speech Since social media companies can't be trusted to make that decision, I'm more worried that what they censor was true speech. Why? Because if it was false, they could just show the truthful information like Twitter did. Basic facts are contentious nowadays (e.g. number of genders in humans). They're going to get it wrong, so it's just too dangerous to censor.
- dgzl 6y agoI suppose you would be in favor of a Minority Report type of world, where our truth machine will tell us verifiably that you will commit crime in the future, thus we should preemptively arrest. Surely it's never wrong!