5 ms·

No because bullshit is easier to make than truth. There is dozens of bot channels that have nothing better to do at the moment but post videos that look like ne

by zaarn 6y ago

No because bullshit is easier to make than truth. There is dozens of bot channels that have nothing better to do at the moment but post videos that look like news channel broadcasts with a semi-convincing TTS reads various news regarding conspiracy theories (ie, "Bill Gates about to be arrested over 5G-Corona"). They post videos at almost hourly pace, distributed over several channels and each video has a unique image to it (ie, different logos, different TTS settings). If normal well researched content had to compete with that, it would loose by being buried under the sheer mass of bot generated bullshit. And that isn't even counting the number of videos produced by actual humans that are just as bad. A lot of conspiracy theorists aren't above threatening violence and law suits (usually libel) against those exposing them or simply posting the truth, I've heard of multiple instances of that occuring, atleast one in-person. This isn't two sides arguing peacefully about one position or the other, it's one side being violent and disrespectful to the other. "Flattening" the discovery of other content is basically asking the otherside to be not-violent and stand back so that the violent side can have their say. Sometimes violence comes from both sides of the debate too (ie, US politics) but that doesn't make the amount of disrespect by people purposefully lying or spreading lies any better. Free speech, as I see it, means that you can express your opinion freely without repercussions unless it's advocating for violence against people or groups of people. If you're talking about facts, those should not fall under free speech under the simple premise that facts are either provable or you should say that you have no proof or you should expose them as the opinions they are.

brigandish 6y ago
> bullshit is easier to make than truth Of course, but truth wins out over the long run. > If normal well researched content had to compete with that, it would loose by being buried under the sheer mass of bot generated bullshit. How do you stay above it all? It's not censored now but you seem able to detect it and protect yourself. > A lot of conspiracy theorists aren't above threatening violence That is censorship, I'm not sure how that supports an argument for more free speech? We have laws against assault already. > and law suits (usually libel) against those exposing them or simply posting the truth How could they win? Defamation laws, at least in the US, value truth above other considerations. > it's one side being violent Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with a free speech argument? > and disrespectful to the other I'm also not sure why this is relevant - it's not nice but so what? > Sometimes violence comes from both sides of the debate too (ie, US politics) but that doesn't make the amount of disrespect by people purposefully lying or spreading lies any better. Violence and disrespect really are completely different ball games, I don't see how conflating them clarifies things. > Free speech, as I see it, means that you can express your opinion freely without repercussions unless it's advocating for violence against people or groups of people. I agree, that's a very good starting point. > If you're talking about facts, those should not fall under free speech under the simple premise that facts are either provable or you should say that you have no proof or you should expose them as the opinions they are. If you could find someone who can judge such things infallibly then perhaps I would agree.
- zaarn 6y ago
  >Of course, but truth wins out over the long run. I doubt that, and if that was even the case, until then lies can do a lot of damage. >How do you stay above it all? It's not censored now but you seem able to detect it and protect yourself. I don't. Sometimes I get fed bullshit and believe it. I'm certain there is things I believe right now that are lies. Sometimes I find out a more proper explanation, sometimes I never get any truth. Getting behind what is lies and what not requires education, something the US for example has abandoned over time for the rich to enjoy. >That is censorship, I'm not sure how that supports an argument for more free speech? We have laws against assault already. Censorship is enacted by government, not private individuals. Besides, they are smart enough to never call for violence directly. They say "I wish someone would call SWAT on this guy" or "this kinda behaviour ends you with a broken nose wink wink". >How could they win? Defamation laws, at least in the US, value truth above other considerations. In the US, a lawsuit isn't about who is right but who has enough money to keep the lawsuit going for longer. >Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with a free speech argument? Free speech is valuable in respectful and calm debate. Disrespectful and violent speech is not free speech, it's violence. >Violence and disrespect really are completely different ball games, I don't see how conflating them clarifies things Reread, I don't conflate them. >If you could find someone who can judge such things infallibly then perhaps I would agree. It doesn't have to be infallible, just reasonably provable or not disprovable. If you're lying on purpose then this entire point is moot anyway, no need to prove anything. Then you're just out for harm.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > I doubt that, and if that was even the case, until then lies can do a lot of damage. Strangely, it's only the proponents of censorship that claim it will lead to utopia. > Censorship is enacted by government, not private individuals. This is not true at all. Free speech is not a synonym for the US 1st amendment. That part of the constitution only protects government interference, which implies that there can be other types, and there's more than one country in the world. Are you really going to claim that social media companies cannot censor? > Besides, they are smart enough to never call for violence directly. They say "I wish someone would call SWAT on this guy" or "this kinda behaviour ends you with a broken nose wink wink". This sounds to me like conspiracy theory talk, as does the bit about rich people. I'm sure both happen but to paint everything or everyone that way lacks nuance at best and sounds like something you'd hear from a quack in a tinfoil hat at worst. > In the US, a lawsuit isn't about who is right but who has enough money to keep the lawsuit going for longer. This is partly true, but it is no doubt true that the law - explicit as it is - states the opposite. Again, who was claiming that the system was perfect? > Disrespectful and violent speech is not free speech, it's violence. > Reread, I don't conflate them. If you didn't then you just have. I suspect you, either knowingly or unknowingly wish to tie disrespect to violence because it's convenient for arguing against disrespectful speech being free. Well, SCOTUS has ruled that even some forms of "violent speech" are covered by the 1st amendment (speech containing threats must be credible and imminent to lose coverage), disrespect is definitely covered. Can I blashpheme or is that too disrespectful? Is satire allowed or is that too disrespecful? Would I be committing violent acts by dismissing God? I'd expect that kind of talk from religious fundamentalists. > It doesn't have to be infallible, just reasonably provable or not disprovable You're circling back to a court system with judges, but… > If you're lying on purpose then this entire point is moot anyway, no need to prove anything. Then you're just out for harm. …you appear to have discarded presumption of innocence along the way. Terrifying.

by zaarn 6y ago

brigandish 6y ago

> bullshit is easier to make than truth Of course, but truth wins out over the long run. > If normal well researched content had to compete with that, it would loose by being buried under the sheer mass of bot generated bullshit. How do you stay above it all? It's not censored now but you seem able to detect it and protect yourself. > A lot of conspiracy theorists aren't above threatening violence That is censorship, I'm not sure how that supports an argument for more free speech? We have laws against assault already. > and law suits (usually libel) against those exposing them or simply posting the truth How could they win? Defamation laws, at least in the US, value truth above other considerations. > it's one side being violent Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with a free speech argument? > and disrespectful to the other I'm also not sure why this is relevant - it's not nice but so what? > Sometimes violence comes from both sides of the debate too (ie, US politics) but that doesn't make the amount of disrespect by people purposefully lying or spreading lies any better. Violence and disrespect really are completely different ball games, I don't see how conflating them clarifies things. > Free speech, as I see it, means that you can express your opinion freely without repercussions unless it's advocating for violence against people or groups of people. I agree, that's a very good starting point. > If you're talking about facts, those should not fall under free speech under the simple premise that facts are either provable or you should say that you have no proof or you should expose them as the opinions they are. If you could find someone who can judge such things infallibly then perhaps I would agree.

zaarn 6y ago
>Of course, but truth wins out over the long run. I doubt that, and if that was even the case, until then lies can do a lot of damage. >How do you stay above it all? It's not censored now but you seem able to detect it and protect yourself. I don't. Sometimes I get fed bullshit and believe it. I'm certain there is things I believe right now that are lies. Sometimes I find out a more proper explanation, sometimes I never get any truth. Getting behind what is lies and what not requires education, something the US for example has abandoned over time for the rich to enjoy. >That is censorship, I'm not sure how that supports an argument for more free speech? We have laws against assault already. Censorship is enacted by government, not private individuals. Besides, they are smart enough to never call for violence directly. They say "I wish someone would call SWAT on this guy" or "this kinda behaviour ends you with a broken nose wink wink". >How could they win? Defamation laws, at least in the US, value truth above other considerations. In the US, a lawsuit isn't about who is right but who has enough money to keep the lawsuit going for longer. >Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with a free speech argument? Free speech is valuable in respectful and calm debate. Disrespectful and violent speech is not free speech, it's violence. >Violence and disrespect really are completely different ball games, I don't see how conflating them clarifies things Reread, I don't conflate them. >If you could find someone who can judge such things infallibly then perhaps I would agree. It doesn't have to be infallible, just reasonably provable or not disprovable. If you're lying on purpose then this entire point is moot anyway, no need to prove anything. Then you're just out for harm.
- brigandish 6y ago
  > I doubt that, and if that was even the case, until then lies can do a lot of damage. Strangely, it's only the proponents of censorship that claim it will lead to utopia. > Censorship is enacted by government, not private individuals. This is not true at all. Free speech is not a synonym for the US 1st amendment. That part of the constitution only protects government interference, which implies that there can be other types, and there's more than one country in the world. Are you really going to claim that social media companies cannot censor? > Besides, they are smart enough to never call for violence directly. They say "I wish someone would call SWAT on this guy" or "this kinda behaviour ends you with a broken nose wink wink". This sounds to me like conspiracy theory talk, as does the bit about rich people. I'm sure both happen but to paint everything or everyone that way lacks nuance at best and sounds like something you'd hear from a quack in a tinfoil hat at worst. > In the US, a lawsuit isn't about who is right but who has enough money to keep the lawsuit going for longer. This is partly true, but it is no doubt true that the law - explicit as it is - states the opposite. Again, who was claiming that the system was perfect? > Disrespectful and violent speech is not free speech, it's violence. > Reread, I don't conflate them. If you didn't then you just have. I suspect you, either knowingly or unknowingly wish to tie disrespect to violence because it's convenient for arguing against disrespectful speech being free. Well, SCOTUS has ruled that even some forms of "violent speech" are covered by the 1st amendment (speech containing threats must be credible and imminent to lose coverage), disrespect is definitely covered. Can I blashpheme or is that too disrespectful? Is satire allowed or is that too disrespecful? Would I be committing violent acts by dismissing God? I'd expect that kind of talk from religious fundamentalists. > It doesn't have to be infallible, just reasonably provable or not disprovable You're circling back to a court system with judges, but… > If you're lying on purpose then this entire point is moot anyway, no need to prove anything. Then you're just out for harm. …you appear to have discarded presumption of innocence along the way. Terrifying.