11 ms·
The linked article concludes: "Creators must be compensated well. But at the same time we have to try to keep things that are important and profound from getti
by Dotnaught 6y ago
The linked article concludes:
"Creators must be compensated well. But at the same time we have to try to keep things that are important and profound from getting locked away where few people will see them. The truth needs to be free and universal."
Let's also consider whether lies should be made more expensive. Free costs more than it's worth.
- sandoooo 6y agoI am in wholehearted agreement on a tax on lies so long as I get to decide which articles are lies.
- lootsauce 6y agoAgain why is THIS downvoted? Am I taking crazy pills or are downvotes completely meaningless?
- JKCalhoun 6y agoPerhaps because OP seems to be suggesting: "there is no truth, facts (and lies) are relative."
- missedthecue 6y agoI think he's saying there are no reliable ways to decide whats what, not that truth doesn't exist
- Nasrudith 6y agoPoe's law I suspect despite the dripping sarcasm pointing out how stupidly exploitable and violent to the truth said "solution" would be.
- marcus_holmes 6y agoAs always, who judges whether something is true?
- imustbeevil 6y agoThe government, scientists, experts in various fields, people who have proven to tell the truth in the past, etc. You obviously still have your own ability to determine what fits your model of the universe and what doesn't. These are just groups of people more likely to have access to information that you might not. You don't have to trust anyone, but in a system where someone has to judge what is true, these groups are closer than the alternative, which would be people with no qualifications, no training, and no history of telling the truth. If you have another alternative I'm all ears.
- sandoooo 6y ago>The government, scientists, experts in various fields, people who have proven to tell the truth in the past, etc. But how has it been implemented in practice? If you look at the raw numbers, generally we rely on the lowest bidders amongst Facebook/Google/Twitter's third-world-country subcontractors, as well as the Chinese government.
- imustbeevil 6y agoThe existing practice is for the community of these sites to upvote good content and downvote bad content. Separately, moderators purge controversial content as a check/balance to the voting system. If users feel that the moderation is inconsistent with their content desires, they choose a different site to frequent, as is the case in market systems.
- sandoooo 6y agoagain, if you look at the whole system in aggregate, the existing practice is for GooFaceTwitBaba to farm out their moderation works to subcontractors, while also bending backwards to prevalent political headwinds to preserve their shareholder value. If users feel that the moderation is inconsistent with their content desires, they are free to leave the megaplatforms and become approximately completely irrelevant, thus achieving the exact same effect as being deplatformed.
- m463 6y agoThat's an interesting thought. Coal plants offer cheap power, mostly because they ignore the externalities of pollution. If you could identify the externalities of lies and tax or fine them in some way, maybe they would be minimized. (tax what you want less of)
- joe_the_user 6y agoLet's also consider whether lies should be made more expensive. Whether lies should be more expensive or not, lies cannot be made expensive. Even in a totalitarian state, false rumors spread easily. The cost of production of lies is close to zero, the cost of distribution of lies also close to zero. It's like all of HN is eager to apply an argument that makes sense for cheap, knock-off auto parts ("Cheap is too expensive", etc) to decent public journalism. It doesn't work.
- Dotnaught 6y ago>Whether lies should be more expensive or not, lies cannot be made expensive. But they can. Defamation laws make false claims expensive. Accounts can be revoked. Costs can be imposed if society has the will to do so.