6 ms·
Honestly, this isn't any more helpful than responding "citation needed" to someone asserting that man-made causes will accelerate climate change. The inevitabil
by edbob 6y ago
Honestly, this isn't any more helpful than responding "citation needed" to someone asserting that man-made causes will accelerate climate change. The inevitability of the abuse of political power is not something that has to be debated over and over again in every thread.
- jolux 6y ago>The inevitability of the abuse of political power is not something that has to be debated over and over again in every thread. I don't contest this, what I contest is the idea that there is comparable misinformation on both sides. rayiner has since updated his post with some examples that he thinks constitute misinformation by news sources themselves, but before the only example given was the tweets from the Washington Times link.
- edbob 6y agoI responded about the future because the quote you disagreed said "there will be", and I think the general tone of discussion here is around the potential future for abuse. We've seen notable comments by Democratic voters who are legitimately afraid of what their party will become. In this context, I'm not sure if current comparisons of misinformation are very relevant. Having explained my thinking, I'll make sure to respectfully engage with yours. I do see the point about both sides not being equal in misinformation. But I think that a lot of the apparent difference comes from bias. There are several liberal narratives that are as baseless as anything in QAnon, and others that are partially factually accurate but framed in very misleading ways. But as these are accepted and promulgated in mainstream media, they are not considered fringe misinformation. I think there may still be greater fault on the "right" in misinformation, but it's not nearly as large as it appears to people in a liberal bubble, and, moreover, that disparity can shift overnight. I don't really want to derail this into a debate about those political narratives, so I probably have to leave it at that.
- jolux 6y agoI agree that the potential for future abuse of a power to regulate misinformation is high. That does not necessarily mean that it outweighs the current value, but I think reasonable people can disagree about this and I think it’s a debate we should be having, given the events of 1/6. I don’t want to get into an argument about which side is worse here or whether they’re equivalent. Suffice it to say, we have different perspectives and I don’t think discussing that is enlightening here.
- edbob 6y agoThank you for the respectful discussion. I feel like I understand your position a lot more clearly now.
- CWuestefeld 6y agowhat I contest is the idea that there is comparable misinformation on both sides I don't see that we need to even consider the question of parity. Saying that one side or another is worse, and therefore requires special attention, is wrong: it's false that only the worst offender should be policed. All sides should be subject to the same rules, whether they're doing it a lot or just a little. My personal philosophy is that for all sides, the remedy is to encourage more information to shine light on the falsehoods, rather than trying to gag any ideas.
- jolux 6y ago>All sides should be subject to the same rules, whether they're doing it a lot or just a little. Sure, absolutely. >Saying that one side or another is worse, and therefore requires special attention, is wrong: it's false that only the worst offender should be policed. This is not my position, I just disagree that the "left-wing" media outlets that rayiner identified are materially engaged in misinformation in the same way that the outlets identified in these letters are. But I also don't really want to litigate this question, as it's a recipe for a flame war. >My personal philosophy is that for all sides, the remedy is to encourage more information to shine light on the falsehoods, rather than trying to gag any ideas. In general I agree, but we're in a state of exception right now. Since 1/6, certain ideas have now proved themselves to be dangerous to (small-d) democratic rule. I don't think this is an easy question to answer, or I would be giving the easy answer, instead of asking the question: what actions are legitimate in this instance to preserve democracy, and do they include regulating the speech of institutions which reject majority rule? Karl Popper has an answer here, but I'm a pretty strict constitutionalist and a strong believer in freedom of speech, so I can't unreservedly suggest the government should intervene.