3 ms·

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 whe

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.

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.