4 ms·

tl;dr You assume both side argue in good faith. When one side doesn’t argue in good faith they can hack our classic understanding of freedom of speech. We need

tl;dr You assume both side argue in good faith. When one side doesn’t argue in good faith they can hack our classic understanding of freedom of speech. We need a word for flooding a space of discourse with so much noise that the truth is obscured and hidden. It’s not censorship in that it’s removing speech, but it’s as effective in undermining free speech. It’s obviously what is happening now. I think the error in what you say is you assume both side are arguing in good faith. But when one party doesn’t argue in good faith, it means they are saying things they don’t truly believe, or that they don’t respect or care about having a fair discourse. Like how during the debates Donald Trump continuously attempted to talk over Biden, and essentially control the discourse via bullying. Just making shit up in order to shut someone else down isn’t okay, and we need to figure out how to protect our traditional values of free speech while also combating when people attempt to destroy our freedom of speech by using this technique at a mass scale in our modern media environment.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
I think its more accurate to say there are bad faith actors on both sides. Thats why its so dangerous to let someone shut down one side of a debate because of bad faith actors. You're also shutting down the good faith actors on that side, while leaving the bad faith actors on the other side still able to participate in bad faith.
- adamsea 6y ago
  > I think its more accurate to say there are bad faith actors on both sides. Bullshit, because at this moment that comparison is a mountain vs a molehill. 0. Trumps lies about Covid and the pandemic crisis which have contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans 1. The racist birther conspiracy. 2. The vast number of well-documented lies Trump told over the last few years. 3. The baseless lies about election fraud or whatever. But you know all this. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith and I think you’re full of shit. Because, after these last four years saying “bad actors on both sides” means that you’ve chosen to either obscure or deny reality. What you’re doing is dangerous to democracy and you should be ashamed of yourself. I’m not saying YouTube removing this content is the right move, but your logic only holds up in a fantasyland devoid of fact or context.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Thanks for the reply. > Bullshit, because at this moment that comparison is a mountain vs a molehill. Regardless, my point in replying to you was to assert that the existence of bad faith actors doesn't justify silencing good faith actors who seem to represent the same "side." > But you know all this. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith and I think you’re full of shit. Then why did you reply to me? What value is there in engaging in some bad faith bullshitter on the internet? Don't you believe that I'm going to respond with more bad faith bullshit and further confuse anyone who isn't rational and detached enough to see the truth? > Because, after these last four years saying “bad actors on both sides” means that you’ve chosen to either obscure or deny reality. After all this you're not even able to see how there could be bad faith actors on both sides? You don't think that bad faith actors on your own side might harm your cause or detract from your message? Or you don't think they exist? > What you’re doing is dangerous to democracy and you should be ashamed of yourself. I get that you're passionate about this so can you explain this statement? If me sharing my opinion is so dangerous then why is it safer to let me vote? I'm genuinely curious how you can think that its good for the common person to cast a ballot but its bad for the common person to share their opinions on the integrity of the election. > I’m not saying YouTube removing this content is the right move, but your logic only holds up in a fantasyland devoid of fact or context. What's the error in my logic? Is trump uniquely bad so the normal rules don't apply, or is there something dangerous about the idea that people who decide whose opinions should be heard are potentially bad faith actors who could corrupt the discourse?
    - croon 6y ago
      > Regardless, my point in replying to you was to assert that the existence of bad faith actors doesn't justify silencing good faith actors who seem to represent the same "side." But as the case stands right now, Youtube isn't shutting down good faith actors on one side, but bad faith actors, who happen to be on one side. There is no silencing of good faith actors, although I wholly agree in concept that it's a thin line to walk.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
alxndr 6y ago
This characterization of flaws in political discourse reminds me of the SEO arms race discovering flaws / hacks in Google's search results rankings.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

I think its more accurate to say there are bad faith actors on both sides. Thats why its so dangerous to let someone shut down one side of a debate because of bad faith actors. You're also shutting down the good faith actors on that side, while leaving the bad faith actors on the other side still able to participate in bad faith.

adamsea 6y ago
> I think its more accurate to say there are bad faith actors on both sides. Bullshit, because at this moment that comparison is a mountain vs a molehill. 0. Trumps lies about Covid and the pandemic crisis which have contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans 1. The racist birther conspiracy. 2. The vast number of well-documented lies Trump told over the last few years. 3. The baseless lies about election fraud or whatever. But you know all this. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith and I think you’re full of shit. Because, after these last four years saying “bad actors on both sides” means that you’ve chosen to either obscure or deny reality. What you’re doing is dangerous to democracy and you should be ashamed of yourself. I’m not saying YouTube removing this content is the right move, but your logic only holds up in a fantasyland devoid of fact or context.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Thanks for the reply. > Bullshit, because at this moment that comparison is a mountain vs a molehill. Regardless, my point in replying to you was to assert that the existence of bad faith actors doesn't justify silencing good faith actors who seem to represent the same "side." > But you know all this. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith and I think you’re full of shit. Then why did you reply to me? What value is there in engaging in some bad faith bullshitter on the internet? Don't you believe that I'm going to respond with more bad faith bullshit and further confuse anyone who isn't rational and detached enough to see the truth? > Because, after these last four years saying “bad actors on both sides” means that you’ve chosen to either obscure or deny reality. After all this you're not even able to see how there could be bad faith actors on both sides? You don't think that bad faith actors on your own side might harm your cause or detract from your message? Or you don't think they exist? > What you’re doing is dangerous to democracy and you should be ashamed of yourself. I get that you're passionate about this so can you explain this statement? If me sharing my opinion is so dangerous then why is it safer to let me vote? I'm genuinely curious how you can think that its good for the common person to cast a ballot but its bad for the common person to share their opinions on the integrity of the election. > I’m not saying YouTube removing this content is the right move, but your logic only holds up in a fantasyland devoid of fact or context. What's the error in my logic? Is trump uniquely bad so the normal rules don't apply, or is there something dangerous about the idea that people who decide whose opinions should be heard are potentially bad faith actors who could corrupt the discourse?
  - croon 6y ago
    > Regardless, my point in replying to you was to assert that the existence of bad faith actors doesn't justify silencing good faith actors who seem to represent the same "side." But as the case stands right now, Youtube isn't shutting down good faith actors on one side, but bad faith actors, who happen to be on one side. There is no silencing of good faith actors, although I wholly agree in concept that it's a thin line to walk.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago

alxndr 6y ago

This characterization of flaws in political discourse reminds me of the SEO arms race discovering flaws / hacks in Google's search results rankings.