3 ms·

So the solution is to censor what information is ok for the plebs to see and what is too ideologically harmful for them? This is a very condescending and autho

So the solution is to censor what information is ok for the plebs to see and what is too ideologically harmful for them? This is a very condescending and authoritarian position that I would hope those of us who care about free discourse would eschew.

DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
> So the solution is to censor what information is ok for the plebs to see and what is too ideologically harmful for them? I'm not saying that.
voganmother42 5y ago
“If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it." Is free discourse about being free from consequences? Is it about equal representation/distribution? I am curious about ideological harm when compared to things like offering legal or medical advice. What does a private company/platform have to do with censorship? Why does a private company/platform need to represent and publish all ideological viewpoints, and what is that company’s responsibility to free discourse?