6 ms·

"The People" believe whatever information has been promoted the most. To claim that we should do nothing to stop malevolent organizations from radicalizing vuln

"The People" believe whatever information has been promoted the most. To claim that we should do nothing to stop malevolent organizations from radicalizing vulnerable citizens is reckless. To lay the blame on individuals to fight this is victim-blaming. We need to battle this industrialized con artistry with whatever power we have - including police, courts, and laws. Throwing up our hands because "censorship bad!" is sick and wrong.

linuxftw 6y ago
Who is 'we'? I don't wish to be included in 'we' and I prefer that the group of 'we' not be in charge of much of anything.
- whydoibother 6y ago
  Does the concept of a collective confuse you?
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    As long as someone can adequately explain who the collective is, and what they perceive legitimizes their ability to make decisions for others.
    - technick 6y ago
      Isn't this venturing into Borg territory?
pfortuny 6y ago
Yes but we have made the judiciary the judge of what goes further than free speech, not the legislative. And that is key. PREEMPTIVE censorship is always a mistake because it only relies on power ideologies.
- protonfish 6y ago
  Remember when we all agreed Nazis were bad? Good times.
  - medicineman 6y ago
    Despite your attempt to be funny, I don't think that time ever existed.
  - pfortuny 6y ago
    What does that even mean? Did I agree to that?
    - protonfish 6y ago
      You seem to want us to fight them with one arm behind our back. I, however, don't care whatever it is you think "we" decided. I believe we should fight fascist propaganda with all the the tools we can grab. Lord knows they are. Current authoritarian disinformation campaigns are a massive and immediate threat to all humanity. If you think so too, then stop bringing knives to this gunfight.
      - _-david-_ 6y ago
        The problem is determining who is a fascist. The term fascist (and also Nazi) is one of the most overused words resulting in many people being falsely labeled fascist.
      - teddyh 6y ago
        > we should fight fascist propaganda with all the the tools we can grab. “What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
minikites 6y ago
Exactly, the current strain of Conservative "thought" is to attack all forms of authority in order to muddle the truth and introduce doubt that any subject is knowable or provable. Allowing misinformation to spread serves that goal nicely and all they have to do is sit back and do nothing. Their entire goal is to create a society where their gut opinions are just as good as knowledge from experts, because experts hurt their feelings (e.g. the Conservative reaction to the 1619 Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_Commission).
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Exactly, the current strain of Conservative "thought" is to attack all forms of authority in order to muddle the truth and introduce doubt that any subject is knowable or provable. Which is kind of a weird whiplash, because it was not all that long ago that that was the standard attack of the Right against the “postmodern” Left.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  This is a strikingly illiberal stance. Attacking free speech is precisely the opposite of what civil liberties has traditionally all been about.
  - minikites 6y ago
    Why is it worth protecting speech that is knowingly false and inflammatory? Think about the paradox of tolerance. True free speech is under threat by the torrent of misinformation and from the constant assault on the very idea of expertise. We as a society have to be active agents to counter misinformation, we can't just sit by and hope it works itself out in "the marketplace of ideas" because that's not how misinformation functions. This is not a new problem, but the internet gives it a new scale which we have yet to reckon with.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      >Why is it worth protecting speech that is knowingly false and inflammatory? Because absurd opinion like "the earth goes round the sun" and "there's nothing wrong with being gay" were once "knowingly false and inflammatory" according to the overwhelming majority of people.
technick 6y ago
Ironically, you were censored (flagged) in following posts while arguing for censorship. Further, in your example, the people are clearly the problem. They need to learn how to fact check and educate themselves. Victim blaming is OKAY when people make themselves the victim by their inaction.
rayiner 6y ago
> The People" believe whatever information has been promoted the most. To claim that we should do nothing to stop malevolent organizations from radicalizing vulnerable citizens is reckless. To lay the blame on individuals to fight this is victim-blaming. We need to battle this industrialized con artistry with whatever power we have - including police, courts, and laws. This is exactly what conservatives said in response to people promoting liberal ideas. Violent left-wing events in the 1970s (e.g. courthouse shootings) could easily have been used as a pretext for massive speech suppression. 9/11 and cries about the radicalization of Muslims through jihadist materials online could have been used the same way. Luckily none of that happened.
- protonfish 6y ago
  Exactly! It is a powerful tool that works and conservatives wield it well while the cringing libs are all "But if we use effective techniques doesn't that make us as bad as them?" No, it doesn't - it just them the pathetic failures they are. Good and wise people don't bring knives to gunfights.

linuxftw 6y ago

Who is 'we'? I don't wish to be included in 'we' and I prefer that the group of 'we' not be in charge of much of anything.

whydoibother 6y ago
Does the concept of a collective confuse you?
- linuxftw 6y ago
  As long as someone can adequately explain who the collective is, and what they perceive legitimizes their ability to make decisions for others.
  - technick 6y ago
    Isn't this venturing into Borg territory?

pfortuny 6y ago

Yes but we have made the judiciary the judge of what goes further than free speech, not the legislative. And that is key. PREEMPTIVE censorship is always a mistake because it only relies on power ideologies.

protonfish 6y ago
Remember when we all agreed Nazis were bad? Good times.
- medicineman 6y ago
  Despite your attempt to be funny, I don't think that time ever existed.
- pfortuny 6y ago
  What does that even mean? Did I agree to that?
  - protonfish 6y ago
    You seem to want us to fight them with one arm behind our back. I, however, don't care whatever it is you think "we" decided. I believe we should fight fascist propaganda with all the the tools we can grab. Lord knows they are. Current authoritarian disinformation campaigns are a massive and immediate threat to all humanity. If you think so too, then stop bringing knives to this gunfight.
    - _-david-_ 6y ago
      The problem is determining who is a fascist. The term fascist (and also Nazi) is one of the most overused words resulting in many people being falsely labeled fascist.
    - teddyh 6y ago
      > we should fight fascist propaganda with all the the tools we can grab. “What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

minikites 6y ago

Exactly, the current strain of Conservative "thought" is to attack all forms of authority in order to muddle the truth and introduce doubt that any subject is knowable or provable. Allowing misinformation to spread serves that goal nicely and all they have to do is sit back and do nothing. Their entire goal is to create a society where their gut opinions are just as good as knowledge from experts, because experts hurt their feelings (e.g. the Conservative reaction to the 1619 Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_Commission).

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Exactly, the current strain of Conservative "thought" is to attack all forms of authority in order to muddle the truth and introduce doubt that any subject is knowable or provable. Which is kind of a weird whiplash, because it was not all that long ago that that was the standard attack of the Right against the “postmodern” Left.
skynet-9000 6y ago
This is a strikingly illiberal stance. Attacking free speech is precisely the opposite of what civil liberties has traditionally all been about.
- minikites 6y ago
  Why is it worth protecting speech that is knowingly false and inflammatory? Think about the paradox of tolerance. True free speech is under threat by the torrent of misinformation and from the constant assault on the very idea of expertise. We as a society have to be active agents to counter misinformation, we can't just sit by and hope it works itself out in "the marketplace of ideas" because that's not how misinformation functions. This is not a new problem, but the internet gives it a new scale which we have yet to reckon with.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >Why is it worth protecting speech that is knowingly false and inflammatory? Because absurd opinion like "the earth goes round the sun" and "there's nothing wrong with being gay" were once "knowingly false and inflammatory" according to the overwhelming majority of people.

technick 6y ago

Ironically, you were censored (flagged) in following posts while arguing for censorship. Further, in your example, the people are clearly the problem. They need to learn how to fact check and educate themselves. Victim blaming is OKAY when people make themselves the victim by their inaction.

rayiner 6y ago

> The People" believe whatever information has been promoted the most. To claim that we should do nothing to stop malevolent organizations from radicalizing vulnerable citizens is reckless. To lay the blame on individuals to fight this is victim-blaming. We need to battle this industrialized con artistry with whatever power we have - including police, courts, and laws. This is exactly what conservatives said in response to people promoting liberal ideas. Violent left-wing events in the 1970s (e.g. courthouse shootings) could easily have been used as a pretext for massive speech suppression. 9/11 and cries about the radicalization of Muslims through jihadist materials online could have been used the same way. Luckily none of that happened.

protonfish 6y ago
Exactly! It is a powerful tool that works and conservatives wield it well while the cringing libs are all "But if we use effective techniques doesn't that make us as bad as them?" No, it doesn't - it just them the pathetic failures they are. Good and wise people don't bring knives to gunfights.