5 ms·

> 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.

> 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.
  - totony 6y ago
    You're being disingenuous. But I think you know that.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > You're being disingenuous. But I think you know that. No I'm not. Transmission is a kind of repetition, but some people seem to think that YouTube has some obligation to transmit (i.e. repeat) their lies about "widespread election fraud." It's not a government service, so there's no First Amendment aspect to this at all, and the allegations themselves are disingenuous lies, so YouTube's moral obligation is on the side of removal.
      - totony 6y ago
        Youtube has been bullied by governement officials into adopting this policy. This is hardly about "forcing someone to repeat lies". Also my argument wasn't even about this, it was that if you assume stupidity of a big portion of the population, you have no alternative but to turn to tyranny.
- ecf 6y ago
  A couple hundred years ago these people never would have a platform and would be relegated to the depths of society, as their idiocracy rightly deserved. Now the uneducated masses can yell and yell and yell, which gives other uneducated masses the false belief that their opinions are to be respected.
  - totony 6y ago
    Yes, and the superior, educated mass (that agree with me) should have all the say?
pie_flavor 6y ago
Swathes how vast? Have you checked? Everyone seems to know of one, nobody seems to know one. And what happens when the big tech companies start pushing wrong information, or censoring right information? Or, a better question, how do you know they haven't started already?

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.
- totony 6y ago
  You're being disingenuous. But I think you know that.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > You're being disingenuous. But I think you know that. No I'm not. Transmission is a kind of repetition, but some people seem to think that YouTube has some obligation to transmit (i.e. repeat) their lies about "widespread election fraud." It's not a government service, so there's no First Amendment aspect to this at all, and the allegations themselves are disingenuous lies, so YouTube's moral obligation is on the side of removal.
    - totony 6y ago
      Youtube has been bullied by governement officials into adopting this policy. This is hardly about "forcing someone to repeat lies". Also my argument wasn't even about this, it was that if you assume stupidity of a big portion of the population, you have no alternative but to turn to tyranny.
ecf 6y ago
A couple hundred years ago these people never would have a platform and would be relegated to the depths of society, as their idiocracy rightly deserved. Now the uneducated masses can yell and yell and yell, which gives other uneducated masses the false belief that their opinions are to be respected.
- totony 6y ago
  Yes, and the superior, educated mass (that agree with me) should have all the say?

pie_flavor 6y ago

Swathes how vast? Have you checked? Everyone seems to know of one, nobody seems to know one. And what happens when the big tech companies start pushing wrong information, or censoring right information? Or, a better question, how do you know they haven't started already?