3 ms·

Do you believe the effect of the spread and adoption of bad ideas is a price we should always be willing to pay? I would say that we should "always" allow bad

Do you believe the effect of the spread and adoption of bad ideas is a price we should always be willing to pay? I would say that we should "always" allow bad ideas in the same sense that we should "always" avoid torture. In the sense that you can construct hypotheticals where not doing so would lead to catastrophic results, but it's necessary to have a very strong presumption in favor because anything else has a high likelihood of abuse. a political party spreading lies and conspiracy theories Like the allegations of Russian collusion? widespread disbelief in the legitimacy of modern science and medicine Like Kamala Harris saying not to take a vaccine if Trump recommends it? all regulations and laws can be abused Yes, and I would claim that this is even more of a problem for laws about speech, because they're inherently highly subjective. According to some, citing FBI crime statistics can be "hate speech".

krapp 6y ago
>Like the allegations of Russian collusion? Well no, I was think of Nazism, the Armenian genocide, the genocide in Myanmar (often attributed to Facebook), the treatment of Uyghurs in China, etc. >>widespread disbelief in the legitimacy of modern science and medicine >Like Kamala Harris saying not to take a vaccine if Trump recommends it? Oh.. I see, you're making this a partisan thing, just taking jabs at the Democrats. Sorry, I was hoping to have a serious conversation, moving on now.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > I see, you're making this a partisan thing The person gave examples of partisan things, that could happen, as an example of how arguments in favor of censorship could be abused. That the point. You seem like you want to ban "lies and conspiracies", and I will point out that this same justification could be used to do horrible things, such as ban discussion of russian conspiracies. That is why the person you are responding to said that "they're inherently highly subjective". Also, I would like to point out that you seemed like you were dog whistling towards certain partisan ideas. Because although you spoke in generalities, you were clearing hinting at generalities that are often used to accuse certain political groups.

krapp 6y ago

>Like the allegations of Russian collusion? Well no, I was think of Nazism, the Armenian genocide, the genocide in Myanmar (often attributed to Facebook), the treatment of Uyghurs in China, etc. >>widespread disbelief in the legitimacy of modern science and medicine >Like Kamala Harris saying not to take a vaccine if Trump recommends it? Oh.. I see, you're making this a partisan thing, just taking jabs at the Democrats. Sorry, I was hoping to have a serious conversation, moving on now.

stale2002 6y ago
> I see, you're making this a partisan thing The person gave examples of partisan things, that could happen, as an example of how arguments in favor of censorship could be abused. That the point. You seem like you want to ban "lies and conspiracies", and I will point out that this same justification could be used to do horrible things, such as ban discussion of russian conspiracies. That is why the person you are responding to said that "they're inherently highly subjective". Also, I would like to point out that you seemed like you were dog whistling towards certain partisan ideas. Because although you spoke in generalities, you were clearing hinting at generalities that are often used to accuse certain political groups.