5 ms·

> Should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids or disagree with what they are being taught? Yes you should. An informed populace is the ba

> Should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids or disagree with what they are being taught? Yes you should. An informed populace is the basis of democracy. If you choose to continue living in a democracy, you have to help pay for its upkeep.

oh_sigh 6y ago
A vast majority of the people who are too stupid to realize these questionable youtube videos are hoaxes(and therefore need to be protected from them) went to public school.
- FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
  Clearly, they are poorly informed. The obvious solution is that public education should be improved, rather than abolished.
- Talanes 6y ago
  A vast majority of the people who immediately recognize these YouTube videos are fake also went to public school. Something like ninety percent of America goes to public school, you can cite them as a vast majority for almost any American activity and probably be right.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    Sounds like we don't need youtube to protect us then.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Yes you should. Thank you. This is exactly the basis upon which we justify the proposal to force YouTube to host content that their shareholders would prefer not to host. Or the alternative formulation, this is the basis on which we justify prohibiting YouTube from censoring political speech that their shareholders disagree with.
- FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
  You missed the most important point. It bears repeating: an informed populace is the basis of democracy. A misinformed populace acts to destroy democracy.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > A misinformed populace acts to destroy democracy. who is to be trusted with the authority to decide what counts as misinformation? Is it possible that a gatekeeper of information would find it easier to misinform the populace than a prominent person who had to contend with other dissenting voices?
    - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
      It feels to me like both sides in this debate want to argue "of course it's patently obvious that I'm right". But services like YouTube and Facebook have no real historical precedents in terms of audience reach, and it's hard to think of a more rock-and-a-hard-place situation than choosing between "force a private company to treat their property like a public square no matter the cost to society" and "allow a private company to dictate what's allowed in a de facto public square." So, yes, of course it's possible a gatekeeper would find it easier to misinform the populace. Over the long term, it's almost guaranteed. Yet it's also possible -- in fact, one can argue the probability is essentially 1.0 -- that refusing to have any gates will also misinform the populace. If we're looking for a blanket rule that will cover all possible situations in this new information reality, we're probably looking in vain.
      - jasonlotito 6y ago
        The burden of proof lies with those who want to deny me rights, not those of us who want to maintain those rights. FB and YouTube has a right to remove content they don't want to host, just like me. If you want to take away my rights, you'd better come up with something really really good.
      - deleted 6y ago
lliamander 6y ago
Government schools are pretty bad despite the ever increasing funding afforded to them, and the teachers unions wield enormous power. If we are going to fund anything, it should be the students directly (via vouchers or whatever) not the systems. I hardly imagine that a government can really be held to account by its citizens if it also takes for itself the role of educate their children.

oh_sigh 6y ago

A vast majority of the people who are too stupid to realize these questionable youtube videos are hoaxes(and therefore need to be protected from them) went to public school.

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
Clearly, they are poorly informed. The obvious solution is that public education should be improved, rather than abolished.
Talanes 6y ago
A vast majority of the people who immediately recognize these YouTube videos are fake also went to public school. Something like ninety percent of America goes to public school, you can cite them as a vast majority for almost any American activity and probably be right.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  Sounds like we don't need youtube to protect us then.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Yes you should. Thank you. This is exactly the basis upon which we justify the proposal to force YouTube to host content that their shareholders would prefer not to host. Or the alternative formulation, this is the basis on which we justify prohibiting YouTube from censoring political speech that their shareholders disagree with.

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
You missed the most important point. It bears repeating: an informed populace is the basis of democracy. A misinformed populace acts to destroy democracy.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > A misinformed populace acts to destroy democracy. who is to be trusted with the authority to decide what counts as misinformation? Is it possible that a gatekeeper of information would find it easier to misinform the populace than a prominent person who had to contend with other dissenting voices?
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    It feels to me like both sides in this debate want to argue "of course it's patently obvious that I'm right". But services like YouTube and Facebook have no real historical precedents in terms of audience reach, and it's hard to think of a more rock-and-a-hard-place situation than choosing between "force a private company to treat their property like a public square no matter the cost to society" and "allow a private company to dictate what's allowed in a de facto public square." So, yes, of course it's possible a gatekeeper would find it easier to misinform the populace. Over the long term, it's almost guaranteed. Yet it's also possible -- in fact, one can argue the probability is essentially 1.0 -- that refusing to have any gates will also misinform the populace. If we're looking for a blanket rule that will cover all possible situations in this new information reality, we're probably looking in vain.
    - jasonlotito 6y ago
      The burden of proof lies with those who want to deny me rights, not those of us who want to maintain those rights. FB and YouTube has a right to remove content they don't want to host, just like me. If you want to take away my rights, you'd better come up with something really really good.
    - deleted 6y ago

lliamander 6y ago

Government schools are pretty bad despite the ever increasing funding afforded to them, and the teachers unions wield enormous power. If we are going to fund anything, it should be the students directly (via vouchers or whatever) not the systems. I hardly imagine that a government can really be held to account by its citizens if it also takes for itself the role of educate their children.