4 ms·

We're inundated with information every day. We don't have enough time in our lifespan to individually process all of that information. Hence we need a system t

We're inundated with information every day. We don't have enough time in our lifespan to individually process all of that information. Hence we need a system that naturally filters out the noise and out only input to is to ensure that the system is fair.

dumpsterdiver 6y ago
> We're inundated with information every day. We don't have enough time in our lifespan to individually process all of that information. Hence we need a system that naturally filters out the noise and out only input to is to ensure that the system is fair. The system you are referring to is called our discerning minds, and it is already in place. By removing any piece of an argument you are removing the ability of a discerning mind to make a sound judgement.
- starfallg 6y ago
  And which part of your discerning mind has the superhuman ability to process and fully investigate every bit of information you run across vying for your attention? There's a reason why advertisements work, and it goes hand-in-hand on why ads are regulated.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dumpsterdiver 6y ago
    > And which part of your discerning mind has the superhuman ability to process and fully investigate every bit of information you run across vying for your attention? Good question. Of course, there is no individual human mind capable of such a thing, and so why should such a mind be permitted to decide what the masses get to see?
    - starfallg 6y ago
      Why do we need courts anyway when we can use our own discerning sense of vigilante justice? Individually humans are quite helpless. That's why we build systems to are able allow us to cooperate and tackle problems that are bigger than any one of us. The justice system, government, private enterprises, the media, etc. We should make sure that all of them are doing their job and weeding out the bad actors accordingly. We then give input to these systems to ensure that operate within their remit.
      - dumpsterdiver 6y ago
        > Why do we need courts anyway when we can use our own discerning sense of vigilante justice? You're still talking about humans though, right? Does that system not count as part of "our discerning minds"? What is a jury if not a group of discerning minds? To be clear, I agree that human systems are necessary (the justice system, military, etc), but when it comes to squelching speech I disagree with that approach. When real people have real concerns and those concerns are silenced by an opposing group, that is oppression plain and simple. Is satire to be suppressed because it makes exagerrated or nonsensical claims? Where do we draw the line, and who gets to decide when satire crosses the line to become incendiary? What would be the end goal of your proposed system that filters speech that you consider "noise"? To prevent a tyrant from taking power by spreading false information? The truth is that once we live in a society where free speech is suppressed then we are already living under a tyranny.
        starfallg 6y ago
        > Is satire to be suppressed because it makes exagerrated or nonsensical claims? Where do we draw the line, and who gets to decide when satire crosses the line to become incendiary? Deciding what to publish is itself a system to disseminate information. Free press and free speech doesn't mean you can force other people to publish your speech. It just means that government is not allowed to suppress it. >What would be the end goal of your proposed system that filters speech that you consider "noise"? To prevent a tyrant from taking power by spreading false information? The truth is that once we live in a society where free speech is suppressed then we are already living under a tyranny. Don't use silly slippery slope arguments. The US already has limits on speech that directly cause harm to others.
concordDance 6y ago
Allowing governments and corporations to be that filter is incredibly dangerous given how much the interests of those institutions and individuals can diverge from yours. Though admittedly, it might not be much worse than the current system (the interests of news orgs definitely diverge from yours).
- starfallg 6y ago
  Government has certain duties, but the media should absolutely be held to certain standards by the public. We (as in the public) can't just allow media outlets to spout lies completely contrary to the truth. Free speech is protection from government interference. But the public absolutely should be able to seek redress from bad media, including those that facilitate bad actors.

dumpsterdiver 6y ago

> We're inundated with information every day. We don't have enough time in our lifespan to individually process all of that information. Hence we need a system that naturally filters out the noise and out only input to is to ensure that the system is fair. The system you are referring to is called our discerning minds, and it is already in place. By removing any piece of an argument you are removing the ability of a discerning mind to make a sound judgement.

starfallg 6y ago
And which part of your discerning mind has the superhuman ability to process and fully investigate every bit of information you run across vying for your attention? There's a reason why advertisements work, and it goes hand-in-hand on why ads are regulated.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dumpsterdiver 6y ago
  > And which part of your discerning mind has the superhuman ability to process and fully investigate every bit of information you run across vying for your attention? Good question. Of course, there is no individual human mind capable of such a thing, and so why should such a mind be permitted to decide what the masses get to see?
  - starfallg 6y ago
    Why do we need courts anyway when we can use our own discerning sense of vigilante justice? Individually humans are quite helpless. That's why we build systems to are able allow us to cooperate and tackle problems that are bigger than any one of us. The justice system, government, private enterprises, the media, etc. We should make sure that all of them are doing their job and weeding out the bad actors accordingly. We then give input to these systems to ensure that operate within their remit.
    - dumpsterdiver 6y ago
      > Why do we need courts anyway when we can use our own discerning sense of vigilante justice? You're still talking about humans though, right? Does that system not count as part of "our discerning minds"? What is a jury if not a group of discerning minds? To be clear, I agree that human systems are necessary (the justice system, military, etc), but when it comes to squelching speech I disagree with that approach. When real people have real concerns and those concerns are silenced by an opposing group, that is oppression plain and simple. Is satire to be suppressed because it makes exagerrated or nonsensical claims? Where do we draw the line, and who gets to decide when satire crosses the line to become incendiary? What would be the end goal of your proposed system that filters speech that you consider "noise"? To prevent a tyrant from taking power by spreading false information? The truth is that once we live in a society where free speech is suppressed then we are already living under a tyranny.
      - starfallg 6y ago
        > Is satire to be suppressed because it makes exagerrated or nonsensical claims? Where do we draw the line, and who gets to decide when satire crosses the line to become incendiary? Deciding what to publish is itself a system to disseminate information. Free press and free speech doesn't mean you can force other people to publish your speech. It just means that government is not allowed to suppress it. >What would be the end goal of your proposed system that filters speech that you consider "noise"? To prevent a tyrant from taking power by spreading false information? The truth is that once we live in a society where free speech is suppressed then we are already living under a tyranny. Don't use silly slippery slope arguments. The US already has limits on speech that directly cause harm to others.

concordDance 6y ago

Allowing governments and corporations to be that filter is incredibly dangerous given how much the interests of those institutions and individuals can diverge from yours. Though admittedly, it might not be much worse than the current system (the interests of news orgs definitely diverge from yours).

starfallg 6y ago
Government has certain duties, but the media should absolutely be held to certain standards by the public. We (as in the public) can't just allow media outlets to spout lies completely contrary to the truth. Free speech is protection from government interference. But the public absolutely should be able to seek redress from bad media, including those that facilitate bad actors.