4 ms·
For victimless misinformation (e.g. "Earth is flat") I see no problem with this approach. For politically motivated misinformation (e.g. "Stop the steal") I th
by zug_zug 6y ago
For victimless misinformation (e.g. "Earth is flat") I see no problem with this approach.
For politically motivated misinformation (e.g. "Stop the steal") I think recent events show we should pretty clearly play it extra safe (e.g. ban the dealer) until we figure out how to reduce the risk of it being weaponized against democracy.
- ghkbrew 6y agoIt sounds like a good idea. But people are a fractious bunch who can't completely agree on anything. Certainly not on what is and isn't "misinformation". I don't think giving someone(s) the power to ban information they think is harmful is going to be the net win for democracy you want. The first amendment to the constitution seems to agree with me.
- dudeithinkBLM 6y agoUh no. A group of yahoos being let into the Capitol to take selfies is not a valid reason to endorse censorship and giving up our collective freedom of speech.
- jancsika 6y agoA robust defense of free speech isn't helped using soft, silly-sounding words like "yahoos" and "selfies" to minimize the threat of a mob that beat an officer to death.
- refurb 6y agoOk. So who decides what gets banned? Consensus? I mean, the consensus back in 2003 was Saddam had nuclear weapons and we needed to invade. If some conspiracy theorist started spouting off how Saddam didn’t have nuclear weapons and it was all about oil should we have banned them?