9 ms·

> Do we reserve judgment on these topics just because someone sued someone else over them? No, but we also shouldn’t censor people for making those claims. It

by craigc 6y ago

> Do we reserve judgment on these topics just because someone sued someone else over them? No, but we also shouldn’t censor people for making those claims. It seems to be the attitude of many big tech companies that their users are too dumb to look at information and decide for themselves what is and isn’t true.

picklesman 6y ago
While in theory this is true, in practice we have seen in recent years that misinformation has as much weight (if not more) as true information in our fragmented global media landscape. I see it more as doing their part to reduce the noise rather than contribute to the problem. And it’s a big problem.
mxcrossb 6y ago
> No, but we also shouldn’t censor people for making those claims. This is not the same argument as > These same claims are being made in ongoing court cases. I think your argument is definitely worth considering, but the “there are court cases” is clearly wrong.
sixothree 6y ago
It's not that their users are too dumb. It's that weapons grade psychological tactics work and they don't want to be a part of that.
- razius 6y ago
  But what if they are?
  - sixothree 6y ago
    That's the problem here. I'm guessing you think you are too analytical to succumb to such tactics. But you aren't. None of us are. We are all human.
rebelos 6y ago
> It seems to be the attitude of many big tech companies that their users are too dumb to look at information and decide for themselves what is and isn’t true. This seems demonstrably true for vast swathes of users, who have become enamored with Flat Eartherism and other such nonsense. Not saying censorship is necessarily the right solution, but arguing on behalf of the reasoning capabilities of the user base is clearly misguided.
- totony 6y ago
  >This seems demonstrably true for vast swathes of users, who have become enamored with Flat Eartherism and other such nonsense. The alternative you're condoning is to make decisions for these people and tell them what to think; that is tyranny. E.g. By not assuming good cognitive ability for people, you are setting them up to be controlled, that you agree with censorship or not.
  - rebelos 6y ago
    I rather categorically did not condone anything. You've made some truly astounding logical leaps here.
    - totony 6y ago
      Is it such a big leap? How do you propose we deal with people who cannot think for themselves but to tell them what to think?
      - AI_WAIFU 6y ago
        Teach them to think for themselves?
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > The alternative you're condoning is to make decisions for these people and tell them what to think; that is tyranny. TIL not repeating lies is tyranny.
azernik 6y ago
I can also claim in court that I have been wronged by an ethnic group, and that the proper remedy for that is genocide. Again - "there's a pending court case alleging this" is not a reason not to take down that kind of content. The decision needs to be on the merits of the actual content.
ecf 6y ago
For the most part, people ARE too dumb.

by craigc 6y ago

picklesman 6y ago

While in theory this is true, in practice we have seen in recent years that misinformation has as much weight (if not more) as true information in our fragmented global media landscape. I see it more as doing their part to reduce the noise rather than contribute to the problem. And it’s a big problem.

mxcrossb 6y ago

> No, but we also shouldn’t censor people for making those claims. This is not the same argument as > These same claims are being made in ongoing court cases. I think your argument is definitely worth considering, but the “there are court cases” is clearly wrong.

sixothree 6y ago

It's not that their users are too dumb. It's that weapons grade psychological tactics work and they don't want to be a part of that.

razius 6y ago
But what if they are?
- sixothree 6y ago
  That's the problem here. I'm guessing you think you are too analytical to succumb to such tactics. But you aren't. None of us are. We are all human.

rebelos 6y ago

> It seems to be the attitude of many big tech companies that their users are too dumb to look at information and decide for themselves what is and isn’t true. This seems demonstrably true for vast swathes of users, who have become enamored with Flat Eartherism and other such nonsense. Not saying censorship is necessarily the right solution, but arguing on behalf of the reasoning capabilities of the user base is clearly misguided.

totony 6y ago
>This seems demonstrably true for vast swathes of users, who have become enamored with Flat Eartherism and other such nonsense. The alternative you're condoning is to make decisions for these people and tell them what to think; that is tyranny. E.g. By not assuming good cognitive ability for people, you are setting them up to be controlled, that you agree with censorship or not.
- rebelos 6y ago
  I rather categorically did not condone anything. You've made some truly astounding logical leaps here.
  - totony 6y ago
    Is it such a big leap? How do you propose we deal with people who cannot think for themselves but to tell them what to think?
    - AI_WAIFU 6y ago
      Teach them to think for themselves?
- ardy42 6y ago
  > The alternative you're condoning is to make decisions for these people and tell them what to think; that is tyranny. TIL not repeating lies is tyranny.

azernik 6y ago

I can also claim in court that I have been wronged by an ethnic group, and that the proper remedy for that is genocide. Again - "there's a pending court case alleging this" is not a reason not to take down that kind of content. The decision needs to be on the merits of the actual content.

ecf 6y ago

For the most part, people ARE too dumb.