4 ms·

He is suggesting a solution - self governance. Trust the people to make their own decisions, because there is no better alternative. What else can we do, have s

He is suggesting a solution - self governance. Trust the people to make their own decisions, because there is no better alternative. What else can we do, have some committee that decides what the public is allowed to hear? That is fascism.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wvenable 6y ago
Nobody is suggesting getting rid of democracy -- this is red herring. This is a bad faith argument about bad faith arguments. It's no wonder people can't decide which direction is up. In a conversation that is supposedly about how people are being mislead by media we're 2 seconds away of Godwin's law again. It's exhausting.
- akiselev 6y ago
  Seriousness aside, Godwin himself agreed that the law no longer applies after Charleston.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    Do you mean Charlottesville?
    - akiselev 6y ago
      :facepalm: Yes
munk-a 6y ago
Nothing in the world is a binary choice - reducing the potential solutions into either or does a disservice to attempts to find reasonable resolutions. In fact I'd say nearly nobody on earth wants to trust people to make all of their own decisions because those decisions impact other people. The choice to murder someone is not a choice we'd like to allow people to freely make without consequence.
michaelmrose 6y ago
We can destroy anonymity on the internet and punish people who spread malicious provable lies, calls for violence, or hate especially people who do so in an organized fashion. An idiot who shares something untrue that he ought to have known was false is materially different from someone who fabricates something and ultimately directly and by proxy misinforms 10 million people. The choice isn't between tyranny or absolute freedom. It's about our actions shaping the bones of society. The current framework isn't mere ground truth we must accept we can reshape it if we desire and perhaps we should.
- spaginal 6y ago
  We should not. Free speech is the only thing that keeps this society glued together, and the actions against free speech taken by the technological elite and it‘s companies over the last several years have primed the landscape for conflict. You can’t just squeeze the screw tighter on this. The idea of “I know better than you, therefore I control what you see and say or else” is the absolute height of arrogance.
- azornathogron 6y ago
  > We can destroy anonymity on the internet and punish people who spread malicious provable lies First of all, plenty of the people currently spreading lies on the internet are doing so under their own names and have built some celebrity and a career out of it, so I don't know why you think that anonymity contributes to the problem in any real way. But more importantly, how exactly do you propose to "punish people" who spread lies? With what form of punishment? Is this a formal system of punishment, or some informal system? If formal: Under what jurisdiction? How does your proposed system determine the truth, and if it can determine the truth how does it determine which lies are malicious enough to be deserving of punishment? If informal: How does it differ from what we have today, in the form of people arguing with each other and occasionally trying to get each other banned from social media or otherwise made unpublishable or unemployable?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wvenable 6y ago

Nobody is suggesting getting rid of democracy -- this is red herring. This is a bad faith argument about bad faith arguments. It's no wonder people can't decide which direction is up. In a conversation that is supposedly about how people are being mislead by media we're 2 seconds away of Godwin's law again. It's exhausting.

akiselev 6y ago
Seriousness aside, Godwin himself agreed that the law no longer applies after Charleston.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  Do you mean Charlottesville?
  - akiselev 6y ago
    :facepalm: Yes

munk-a 6y ago

Nothing in the world is a binary choice - reducing the potential solutions into either or does a disservice to attempts to find reasonable resolutions. In fact I'd say nearly nobody on earth wants to trust people to make all of their own decisions because those decisions impact other people. The choice to murder someone is not a choice we'd like to allow people to freely make without consequence.

michaelmrose 6y ago

We can destroy anonymity on the internet and punish people who spread malicious provable lies, calls for violence, or hate especially people who do so in an organized fashion. An idiot who shares something untrue that he ought to have known was false is materially different from someone who fabricates something and ultimately directly and by proxy misinforms 10 million people. The choice isn't between tyranny or absolute freedom. It's about our actions shaping the bones of society. The current framework isn't mere ground truth we must accept we can reshape it if we desire and perhaps we should.

spaginal 6y ago
We should not. Free speech is the only thing that keeps this society glued together, and the actions against free speech taken by the technological elite and it‘s companies over the last several years have primed the landscape for conflict. You can’t just squeeze the screw tighter on this. The idea of “I know better than you, therefore I control what you see and say or else” is the absolute height of arrogance.
azornathogron 6y ago
> We can destroy anonymity on the internet and punish people who spread malicious provable lies First of all, plenty of the people currently spreading lies on the internet are doing so under their own names and have built some celebrity and a career out of it, so I don't know why you think that anonymity contributes to the problem in any real way. But more importantly, how exactly do you propose to "punish people" who spread lies? With what form of punishment? Is this a formal system of punishment, or some informal system? If formal: Under what jurisdiction? How does your proposed system determine the truth, and if it can determine the truth how does it determine which lies are malicious enough to be deserving of punishment? If informal: How does it differ from what we have today, in the form of people arguing with each other and occasionally trying to get each other banned from social media or otherwise made unpublishable or unemployable?