4 ms·
> is the final arbiter of truth That's a strawman argument. Judges are are not final arbiters of truth either, yet they can take away certain constitutional pr
by jonathanstrange 6y ago
> is the final arbiter of truth
That's a strawman argument. Judges are are not final arbiters of truth either, yet they can take away certain constitutional protections from people. It is perfectly possible to have non-final and fallible arbiters of truth - or something more modest like the interpretation of laws - to decide on such matters, as long as there is enough democratic division of power, due process, and appeals mechanisms.
- kebman 6y agoThis matters very little to the one being censored. For them, that is indeed the “final stop,” as it were. As it stands the warnings and fact-checkers on places like Facebook serve only as annoynances to most people, and proof to them that the system is both authoritarian and wrong. This is also why so many want to fact check the fact checkers, and so on... In the end, it has just given a cause for a lot of people to unite against.