3 ms·
> In democracies the judiciary is not at all there to decide truth. It's there to apply the law Yes, and in this case. It would have gone something like this,
by actuator 5y ago
> In democracies the judiciary is not at all there to decide truth. It's there to apply the law
Yes, and in this case. It would have gone something like this, the side which thinks it has been wrongly represented files a libel lawsuit and then facts are checked and the case is argued in a transparent manner.
What happened right now was action by a black box on commentary from another black box. We know before wars, stories have been carried by private companies("news" organisations) to set the narrative. They turned out to be false but did they ever answer for them? No.
> It is governemnt of the people, by the people, for the people.
But is this by people? I can choose to not believe in it but do you disagree the vast amount of influence these platforms hold and how they can set the tone of the discourse.
Wasn't this the exact alleged issue in 2016 elections? FB's targeting was used to selectively set narrative.
Are we fine with unchecked use of these all mighty tools?
- wolverine876 5y ago>> In democracies the judiciary is not at all there to decide truth. It's there to apply the law > Yes, and in this case. It would have gone something like this, the side which thinks it has been wrongly represented files a libel lawsuit and then facts are checked and the case is argued in a transparent manner. Generally, the most important aspect of free speech is that you can say what you want about the government; there's no such thing as libeling it. Otherwise, libel is a means of the government restricting speech and harassing opponents - a means commonly used by dictators, including Modi. The idea of trusting the government to control political speech or be the artbiter of truth seems to ignore the obvious, well-established risks.