4 ms·

> imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good? Who decides that it’s bullsh

> imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good? Who decides that it’s bullshit though? The government? Or maybe interested-party-backed “fact checkers”?

mewse-hn 5y ago
Court
yifanl 5y ago
Well, unless you hold the opposite position where nothing is bullshit and everything is equally valuable, _somebody_ has to be able to decide.
- 3np 5y ago
  Not if you subscribe to the idea that things without or even net negative value should be legal to share.
  - yifanl 5y ago
    I will claim that after a certain negative threshold, some things should not be legal to be share in all forums. Accepting that, it becomes a question of where do you draw that line.
- ihyfhgyfhth 5y ago
  I would surmise the traditional belief of western philosophy thusly: 1) I do not have perfect knowledge. 2) Good, or at least better, ideas will implicitly produce better results over long periods. 3) It is immoral to control the lives of others. 4) Therefore, people can argue for ideas they find compelling, and people are free to choose what they think is best. 5) Furthermore, people must bear the consequences of their decisions. A further part of this system was that it was necessary for society to be structured such that individual choices do not have an outsized impact on others. This required that the apparatus of the state have specific constraints. It was quite a remarkable belief system, and much has been written about it over centuries.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    > A further part of this system was that it was necessary for society to be structured such that individual choices do not have an outsized impact on others Technology has changed that rather dramatically.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Okay, but we still have systems in place that routinely make decisions based on determinations about factual statements. There are obvious ones, like determining whether someone murdered someone else, or determining how much money someone made for the purposes of taxation. We don’t just throw up our hands and say “sure, maybe there is objective reality out there, but even if there is, who could possibly decide what is real?”
pessimizer 5y ago
The government. This is basically a lese-majeste case, so the person you're criticizing has the authority to declare the criticism slander.
- ValentineC 5y ago
  > The government. This is basically a lese-majeste case, so the person you're criticizing has the authority to declare the criticism slander. Not true. Defamation suits still have to go through due process in the courts.

mewse-hn 5y ago

Court

yifanl 5y ago

Well, unless you hold the opposite position where nothing is bullshit and everything is equally valuable, _somebody_ has to be able to decide.

3np 5y ago
Not if you subscribe to the idea that things without or even net negative value should be legal to share.
- yifanl 5y ago
  I will claim that after a certain negative threshold, some things should not be legal to be share in all forums. Accepting that, it becomes a question of where do you draw that line.
ihyfhgyfhth 5y ago
I would surmise the traditional belief of western philosophy thusly: 1) I do not have perfect knowledge. 2) Good, or at least better, ideas will implicitly produce better results over long periods. 3) It is immoral to control the lives of others. 4) Therefore, people can argue for ideas they find compelling, and people are free to choose what they think is best. 5) Furthermore, people must bear the consequences of their decisions. A further part of this system was that it was necessary for society to be structured such that individual choices do not have an outsized impact on others. This required that the apparatus of the state have specific constraints. It was quite a remarkable belief system, and much has been written about it over centuries.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > A further part of this system was that it was necessary for society to be structured such that individual choices do not have an outsized impact on others Technology has changed that rather dramatically.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Okay, but we still have systems in place that routinely make decisions based on determinations about factual statements. There are obvious ones, like determining whether someone murdered someone else, or determining how much money someone made for the purposes of taxation. We don’t just throw up our hands and say “sure, maybe there is objective reality out there, but even if there is, who could possibly decide what is real?”

pessimizer 5y ago

The government. This is basically a lese-majeste case, so the person you're criticizing has the authority to declare the criticism slander.

ValentineC 5y ago
> The government. This is basically a lese-majeste case, so the person you're criticizing has the authority to declare the criticism slander. Not true. Defamation suits still have to go through due process in the courts.