4 ms·
That would be a terrible idea. In times gone by, that would have prevented people spreading information about the world being a sphere and orbiting the sun. T
by rleigh 6y ago
That would be a terrible idea.
In times gone by, that would have prevented people spreading information about the world being a sphere and orbiting the sun. The flat earthers and proponents of the earth being the centre of the universe would have suppressed Copernicus' and Kepler's discoveries of heliocentrism and elliptical orbits.
New ideas displace old ideas all the time, and that displacement can only occur if there is both a rational evidence-based reason for displacing it and there is the opportunity to do so. To suppress an idea is to remove opportunity for discussion and to entrench the established viewpoint irrespective of its merits. It's the very antithesis of modern liberal thought.
Suppression of ideas also conversely prevents the objective discussion of bad ideas and dismissing them. Too much conversation in the present days is not grounded in objectivity, and this lets bad ideas fester. Open and fair minded discussion is a basic requirement for living in a free society.
There is a disturbing tendency to wish to suppress discussion of "sensitive" or "controversial" topics in recent years. That is a path which will lead to tyranny. Because it boils down to other people telling us what we are and are not allowed to say, think and do. This would not be a fair or free society.
- amelius 6y agoI believe that what I'm suggesting is more like how spreading of information worked in the old days (increasingly bigger groups have to approve of the information). The problem is that today we have social media and false information can spread instantly to an entire population. This needs a new approach, because it creates problems like extreme polarization.
- rleigh 6y agoI still think this is horribly wrong. Having groups "approve" information means having gatekeepers who wield a lot of power. Censors. Who is to ensure that they exercise that power both fairly and accurately? It opens a huge can of worms. It might seem to make sense for "obviously" black and white issues. But most are not so clear cut, and choosing a "correct" side is impossible. "False information" isn't countered by suppression. It's countered with facts and open discussion. I absolutely agree that the current state of affairs with social media is problematic. That's the reason I quit all of them and deleted my accounts permanently. But what you're advocating still amounts to censorship and a failure to treat individuals as capable of evidence-based rational thought, and is still the antithesis of what we want in an open and free society.
- amelius 6y ago> Having groups "approve" information means having gatekeepers who wield a lot of power. You can choose the moderators at random. This would be somewhat akin to the idea of sortition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition