3 ms·

Since the point clearly went over your head or you just decided to give that snotty reply to a strawman you came up with: parent was saying good ideas don't win

Since the point clearly went over your head or you just decided to give that snotty reply to a strawman you came up with: parent was saying good ideas don't win if demagogues can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas in the same way that, say, the ISP industry can hold broadly anti-consumer policies that customers don't do anything about because it is locally not a free market. To expand it further, I would argue stuff like Twitter and Facebook that optimize for engagement are already not free speech since they are designed for only the most outrageous (and likely false) content to flourish.

kneel 6y ago
No one cared about free speech until Trump was elected. Propaganda isn't anything new, it's used by demagogues to blame society's woes on [insert scapegoat here] Rather than address society's woes (there are so many in the US) We're just told it's somehow different this time, because it's digital. This just doesn't hold up when you see that this story has played out many times in the past, it's predictable to anyone paying attention.
- UncleEntity 6y ago
  I'd argue that no one cared about restricting free speech until Trump was elected -- unless that's what you meant. Just as no one really cared about political demonstrations until they turned violent. Not like Kent State violence but roving 'blocks' overturning cars and lighting things on fire.
coldtea 6y ago
>parent was saying good ideas don't win if demagogues can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas Well, that's irrelevant, as free speech is not about "good ideas winning", but all ideas being able to be heard. Saying that some are "demagogues" is begging the question, and presumes one side has the good ideas, and the other doesn't. Which, whether is the case or not, should be irrelevant from the perspective of free speech. "Free speech for good ideas" is not free speech, it's a dictatorship of people prescribing and controlling which ideas are to be considering good. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
betwixthewires 6y ago
There's no straw man in the argument you're replying to. All that was said was "maybe the idea that things should be censored is a bad idea and should be censored." It is a very clever way to demonstrate the danger of what you're potentially prepared to embrace, and how it can be used against you. Nobody can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas. Nobody. That genie is out of the bottle.
- BlackFly 6y ago
  No, it is a straw man. The idea that crazygringo highlighted was simply the notion that maybe the best ideas don't win in a free marketplace of ideas. The straw man presented was that you wouldn't be able to discuss this at all if there was no free speech. But there are regulations on free speech and they are sensible. My understanding of speech regulations in the USA is that they primarily need to be focused on time, place and manner restrictions unless they fall into some exceptions that typically don't matter (edit: typically don't matter in political discussions). A sensible manner restriction: you will generally be told to move along if you are shouting your message at the top of your lungs in a public place. Especially so if it is the middle of the night. How you speak your message can be regulated in a more easily balanced way, although it is somewhat dangerous as well. This leads to potential place, manner restrictions online. A manner restriction can easily be content neutral. A manner restriction: you could maybe regulate the use of sock puppets or fake accounts. Here you see it is a strawman argument to say we could not have a discussion regarding whether good ideas will win in a marketplace where sock puppets are banned.

kneel 6y ago

No one cared about free speech until Trump was elected. Propaganda isn't anything new, it's used by demagogues to blame society's woes on [insert scapegoat here] Rather than address society's woes (there are so many in the US) We're just told it's somehow different this time, because it's digital. This just doesn't hold up when you see that this story has played out many times in the past, it's predictable to anyone paying attention.

UncleEntity 6y ago
I'd argue that no one cared about restricting free speech until Trump was elected -- unless that's what you meant. Just as no one really cared about political demonstrations until they turned violent. Not like Kent State violence but roving 'blocks' overturning cars and lighting things on fire.

coldtea 6y ago

>parent was saying good ideas don't win if demagogues can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas Well, that's irrelevant, as free speech is not about "good ideas winning", but all ideas being able to be heard. Saying that some are "demagogues" is begging the question, and presumes one side has the good ideas, and the other doesn't. Which, whether is the case or not, should be irrelevant from the perspective of free speech. "Free speech for good ideas" is not free speech, it's a dictatorship of people prescribing and controlling which ideas are to be considering good. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

betwixthewires 6y ago

There's no straw man in the argument you're replying to. All that was said was "maybe the idea that things should be censored is a bad idea and should be censored." It is a very clever way to demonstrate the danger of what you're potentially prepared to embrace, and how it can be used against you. Nobody can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas. Nobody. That genie is out of the bottle.

BlackFly 6y ago
No, it is a straw man. The idea that crazygringo highlighted was simply the notion that maybe the best ideas don't win in a free marketplace of ideas. The straw man presented was that you wouldn't be able to discuss this at all if there was no free speech. But there are regulations on free speech and they are sensible. My understanding of speech regulations in the USA is that they primarily need to be focused on time, place and manner restrictions unless they fall into some exceptions that typically don't matter (edit: typically don't matter in political discussions). A sensible manner restriction: you will generally be told to move along if you are shouting your message at the top of your lungs in a public place. Especially so if it is the middle of the night. How you speak your message can be regulated in a more easily balanced way, although it is somewhat dangerous as well. This leads to potential place, manner restrictions online. A manner restriction can easily be content neutral. A manner restriction: you could maybe regulate the use of sock puppets or fake accounts. Here you see it is a strawman argument to say we could not have a discussion regarding whether good ideas will win in a marketplace where sock puppets are banned.