2 ms·

Kindly take this as a devils advocate post before you reflexively downvote. It looks like letting people say anything they want on major social media platforms

Kindly take this as a devils advocate post before you reflexively downvote. It looks like letting people say anything they want on major social media platforms is only having one major positive effect: a few advertising companies are becoming very rich. The negative effects include: - incited violence (gang-oriented gun crime in Chicago is often fanned by social media posts for example) - bad medical decisions (vaccine/COVID misinformation) - cancel culture/political manipulation (people taking other people's posts as facts when they are not) I would like to uphold the principle of free speech and forcing social media providers to be free speech agents even though they are private companies, but it's starting to get hard to defend. I am losing faith that strict adherence to free speech is going to result in a smarter, happier humanity. It might be better if less people speak their mind.

silveraxe93 6y ago
I think it's obvious that if less people speak their mind, we could have a smarter, happier humanity. But I also think it's obvious that I shouldn't trust you to make the decision of who needs to shut up. And definitely not the government.
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  > But I also think it's obvious that I shouldn't trust you to make the decision of who needs to shut up. And definitely not the government. Well right now social media companies seem to have that power. How is that better? I hear this point all the time. Is there a better response than this?
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > Well right now social media companies seem to have that power. How is that better? It's not; we're attempting to fix that, and TFA is about Google maliciously attacking one such attempt.
kanox 6y ago
> I would like to uphold the principle of free speech No, you completely against that principle.
john-shaffer 6y ago
Which powerful, privileged people should get to decide what we are allowed to hear about? When the power is inevitably abused, how can we address that abuse when we may not be allowed to know about it? Is it even necessary for free speech to directly result in a happier humanity? What if it simply preserves the conditions that we need for progress, or merely keeps us from sliding backwards? Would that be enough to make it worthwhile for you?
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  > Which powerful, privileged people should get to decide what we are allowed to hear about? Journalists and news media, bound by the respect and principles of their profession, fulfilled this function in the past. There seemed to be a time in the past where division between reporting and editorials were more separate. We've destroyed the institution of news media without a good replacement; now people are taking editorials (people's social media posts) as the equivalent of news. > Is it even necessary for free speech to directly result in a happier humanity? If not then what is it worth? > What if it simply preserves the conditions that we need for progress I'm simply not seeing how social media after a good 10 years of it is progressing anything other than the profits of its owners.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    The respect and principles of the profession and a bucket or horse piss will get you a bucket of horse piss - it isn't worth anything and certainly not as a check on power. It is nonsensical to claim social media destroyed the news media. It was already dying before the internet let alone social media. To put blame on it is a blatant lie from the losers of the old era who got regularly dunked on by bloggers and forum posters in basic fact checking. Early wikipedia "not suitable for reports" clearly did a better job. They didn't catch up with the internet until it got basic enough for them to follow it with Twitter.

silveraxe93 6y ago

I think it's obvious that if less people speak their mind, we could have a smarter, happier humanity. But I also think it's obvious that I shouldn't trust you to make the decision of who needs to shut up. And definitely not the government.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago
> But I also think it's obvious that I shouldn't trust you to make the decision of who needs to shut up. And definitely not the government. Well right now social media companies seem to have that power. How is that better? I hear this point all the time. Is there a better response than this?
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > Well right now social media companies seem to have that power. How is that better? It's not; we're attempting to fix that, and TFA is about Google maliciously attacking one such attempt.

kanox 6y ago

> I would like to uphold the principle of free speech No, you completely against that principle.

john-shaffer 6y ago

Which powerful, privileged people should get to decide what we are allowed to hear about? When the power is inevitably abused, how can we address that abuse when we may not be allowed to know about it? Is it even necessary for free speech to directly result in a happier humanity? What if it simply preserves the conditions that we need for progress, or merely keeps us from sliding backwards? Would that be enough to make it worthwhile for you?

tenebrisalietum 6y ago
> Which powerful, privileged people should get to decide what we are allowed to hear about? Journalists and news media, bound by the respect and principles of their profession, fulfilled this function in the past. There seemed to be a time in the past where division between reporting and editorials were more separate. We've destroyed the institution of news media without a good replacement; now people are taking editorials (people's social media posts) as the equivalent of news. > Is it even necessary for free speech to directly result in a happier humanity? If not then what is it worth? > What if it simply preserves the conditions that we need for progress I'm simply not seeing how social media after a good 10 years of it is progressing anything other than the profits of its owners.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The respect and principles of the profession and a bucket or horse piss will get you a bucket of horse piss - it isn't worth anything and certainly not as a check on power. It is nonsensical to claim social media destroyed the news media. It was already dying before the internet let alone social media. To put blame on it is a blatant lie from the losers of the old era who got regularly dunked on by bloggers and forum posters in basic fact checking. Early wikipedia "not suitable for reports" clearly did a better job. They didn't catch up with the internet until it got basic enough for them to follow it with Twitter.