4 ms·

So in your case “pretty anti-censorship” means censoring what you don’t agree with is fine? “election fraud conspiratorialists” seem to have a case in court. I

So in your case “pretty anti-censorship” means censoring what you don’t agree with is fine? “election fraud conspiratorialists” seem to have a case in court. It’s up to Supreme Court to decide whether something is true or not, not youtube. About them being loud, how can they be “loud” when none of the media is representing their case? This act of censorship is showcasing very grim future where absolute minority gets to decide what tune whole generations are playing to.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> So in your case “pretty anti-censorship” means censoring what you don’t agree with is fine? I like ideas that I don't agree with when debate is healthy. I don't like when people who hold those ideas just keep shouting the same thing over and over without actually engaging with the rebuttals presented--frankly I find that behavior reprehensible. I have sympathy for people who want to suppress that sort of behavior, which is what you're picking up on from my previous comment, but I'm far from convinced that it's a viable solution. Mostly though, this conspiratorial content is so obviously damaging and in bad-faith, etc that I don't care so much about imperfections with respect to free speech ideals, just like I'm not very worked up that Germany bans holocaust denialism. > About them being loud, how can they be “loud” when none of the media is representing their case? Because social media exists, and because the POTUS is using his enormous platform to the same end? > This act of censorship is showcasing very grim future where absolute minority gets to decide what tune whole generations are playing to This has always been the case. Traditional media is exactly this model.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  It seems like the health of the debate has a lot to do with your opinion of the arguments presented. See how this works? What you're talking about is viewpoint censorship with extra steps
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    You're mistaken. The health (or lack of health) of a dialogue is completely orthogonal to agreement (I would have thought this was obvious, but I guess not). I could agree with someone, but their discourse could be completely toxic (e.g., I can love Linux but nevertheless it would be toxic if someone were just shouting "I LOVE LINUX ITS THE BEST LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU!"). I could (and frequently do) also find myself civily disagreeing with someone, but understanding their arguments (and my own) better as a result--this is an example of healthy dialogue. In this particular case, I happen to disagree with conspiratorialists and also object to their discourse, but again, those are two distinct concerns.

throwaway894345 6y ago

> So in your case “pretty anti-censorship” means censoring what you don’t agree with is fine? I like ideas that I don't agree with when debate is healthy. I don't like when people who hold those ideas just keep shouting the same thing over and over without actually engaging with the rebuttals presented--frankly I find that behavior reprehensible. I have sympathy for people who want to suppress that sort of behavior, which is what you're picking up on from my previous comment, but I'm far from convinced that it's a viable solution. Mostly though, this conspiratorial content is so obviously damaging and in bad-faith, etc that I don't care so much about imperfections with respect to free speech ideals, just like I'm not very worked up that Germany bans holocaust denialism. > About them being loud, how can they be “loud” when none of the media is representing their case? Because social media exists, and because the POTUS is using his enormous platform to the same end? > This act of censorship is showcasing very grim future where absolute minority gets to decide what tune whole generations are playing to This has always been the case. Traditional media is exactly this model.

quotemstr 6y ago
It seems like the health of the debate has a lot to do with your opinion of the arguments presented. See how this works? What you're talking about is viewpoint censorship with extra steps
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  You're mistaken. The health (or lack of health) of a dialogue is completely orthogonal to agreement (I would have thought this was obvious, but I guess not). I could agree with someone, but their discourse could be completely toxic (e.g., I can love Linux but nevertheless it would be toxic if someone were just shouting "I LOVE LINUX ITS THE BEST LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU!"). I could (and frequently do) also find myself civily disagreeing with someone, but understanding their arguments (and my own) better as a result--this is an example of healthy dialogue. In this particular case, I happen to disagree with conspiratorialists and also object to their discourse, but again, those are two distinct concerns.