4 ms·
How is it [the president making baseless claims] dangerous for democracy? What if the opposite is true? What if censoring thoughts is the real danger for democr
by starbugs 6y ago
How is it [the president making baseless claims] dangerous for democracy? What if the opposite is true? What if censoring thoughts is the real danger for democracy?
I am not saying I have proof for any of this. But I guess, that's true for your claim, too. I think it would be wise to rephrase it so that it doesn't sound like a fact.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- uoaei 6y agoLow-effort what-if scenarios don't deserve much consideration.
- the_optimist 6y agoCan you clarify your theory? Is it specifically the amount of effort that determines legal consideration?
- uoaei 6y agoIt's the same concern that Google is addressing. Anyone can make claims. No one is required to give them a platform if there's no reason to take anything they say seriously. Until they present well-reasoned and informed arguments, they should be and are ignored by rational people.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt's dangerous for democracy because he's using those baseless claims to support explicit calls for antidemocratic actions - he's asked multiple governors to throw out their states' election results for him.
- starbugs 6y agoPart of the democratic process is to defend itself against such attacks. If the defence is suppressing speech, then that might signal that democracy is not strong enough to deal with these issues. An easy win for the attacker. It's a pity that we aren't capable of sustaining a situation like that without dismantling the very core of the democratic system: freedom of speech.
- natex 6y ago> It's a pity that we aren't capable of sustaining a situation like that without dismantling the very core of the democratic system: freedom of speech. What about Google's free speech?
- starbugs 6y agoWhat about it? The last time I looked up "freedom of speech" censorship was on the list of exact opposites.
- natex 6y agoHuh? Look it up again. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever you want any place you desire. Referring to the First Amendment, it protects from governmental repercussion. Google's censorship of its users presents no First Amendment implications as no governmental, or state, action is involved. By censoring what is said on it's platform, Google is exercising it's own free speech. Google has a right to censor dangerous and shitty takes on it's platform. You have zero rights to be heard on Google's platforms.
- 6y ago
- neogodless 6y agoThis is probably worth a read: https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/mute-button.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/mute-button.html And we need to go back to... censorship at the government level, vs publicly traded or private companies. The government having a huge megaphone that reaches basically everyone, and then that same government censoring (turning the volume/reach way down) on competing messages - that's a very dangerous thing. It puts an awful lot of power in the government. When the government says lots of dishonest things, or things that completely lack evidence, it is the duty of anyone with some influence on spreading messages to counteract that problem. In fact, when the government tries to discredit all competing sources of information, that's a very dangerous thing. The people arguing against (government) censorship should be well to do to realize that right now, President Donald Trump is the loudest voice in government, and he's trying to drown out all opposing messages, and have you only listen to him. Read about the history of censorship, and figure out what kind of message muting you want to fight!
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]