3 ms·

So to prevent a next Hitler, should we censor anyone expressing or spreading dangerous misinformation, or should we publicly point out how dangerous their views

by p1esk 6y ago

So to prevent a next Hitler, should we censor anyone expressing or spreading dangerous misinformation, or should we publicly point out how dangerous their views are and try to engage in a debate? What else can we do?

krapp 6y ago
We can do both. What you and nearly everyone who argues from your point of view fails to concede is that that these are not mutually opposed strategies. It is possible to censor dangerous information without falling down a slippery slope towards arbitrary thought-policing and Orwellian dystopia, or to at least attempt to slow the spread of dangerous misinformation by not allowing it to be normalized or given equal weight to truth, and it is possible to do so while attempting to engage the open-minded few. In a world where the only thing one could do about the next Hitler is politely and civilly ask him and his neo-Nazi cohort for a vigorous series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates, one will be told to get lost while they go on about their business of saturating every platform they can with their propaganda and poisoning the well of public discourse. And then what? Their strategy is more effective than yours. What can you do when your only option can be rendered ineffective simply by ignoring it and mocking it with Facebook memes? You've already lost the battle.
- p1esk 6y ago
  It is possible to censor dangerous information without falling down a slippery slope towards arbitrary thought-policing and Orwellian dystopia You made an extraordinary claim without providing any evidence or explanation. It's like saying "faster than light travel is possible". How is it possible? Has anyone done that successfully? More specifically, who's going to be the censor? Who will decide whether what I write is a dangerous misinformation or not? How will they decide that? How are they going to censor it (removing my comments on HN, cutting off my internet, fining me, arresting me, sending a predator drone after me)? This is really scary. This is exactly how the next Hitler can emerge.

by p1esk 6y ago

krapp 6y ago

We can do both. What you and nearly everyone who argues from your point of view fails to concede is that that these are not mutually opposed strategies. It is possible to censor dangerous information without falling down a slippery slope towards arbitrary thought-policing and Orwellian dystopia, or to at least attempt to slow the spread of dangerous misinformation by not allowing it to be normalized or given equal weight to truth, and it is possible to do so while attempting to engage the open-minded few. In a world where the only thing one could do about the next Hitler is politely and civilly ask him and his neo-Nazi cohort for a vigorous series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates, one will be told to get lost while they go on about their business of saturating every platform they can with their propaganda and poisoning the well of public discourse. And then what? Their strategy is more effective than yours. What can you do when your only option can be rendered ineffective simply by ignoring it and mocking it with Facebook memes? You've already lost the battle.

p1esk 6y ago
It is possible to censor dangerous information without falling down a slippery slope towards arbitrary thought-policing and Orwellian dystopia You made an extraordinary claim without providing any evidence or explanation. It's like saying "faster than light travel is possible". How is it possible? Has anyone done that successfully? More specifically, who's going to be the censor? Who will decide whether what I write is a dangerous misinformation or not? How will they decide that? How are they going to censor it (removing my comments on HN, cutting off my internet, fining me, arresting me, sending a predator drone after me)? This is really scary. This is exactly how the next Hitler can emerge.