3 ms·
> The OP never claimed to have an appropriate solution so I don't know what you are talking about regarding them thinking censorship is easy. Disagree. This is
by baobabKoodaa 5y ago
> The OP never claimed to have an appropriate solution so I don't know what you are talking about regarding them thinking censorship is easy.
Disagree. This is what OP said, among other things: "We absolutely can, as a society, say that (for example) misinformation about vaccines, where we are dealing with matters of fact, is not on a level with actual vaccine science. This is not really up for honest debate."
- jhanschoo 5y agoYou are confusing the identification of certain statements as false (which is easy for some things), with the enforcement of censorship (which OP does not claim to have).
- baobabKoodaa 5y agoOk. Allow me to rephrase: can you point to a single example where an entity was given power to decide which statements are false (for censorship-related purposes) and subsequently did a good job? To be specific, I mean doing a good job of identifying which statements are false and which statements are true.
- jhanschoo 5y agoWell, that's not something the OP has a good answer to, and they admit it. In fact, they've written, > Is censorship the best way to deal with it? Probably not. But we do need to recognise this as a problem as well as getting het up about giant internet platforms deplatforming people. > make no claims to be one of the group of enlightened ubermensch who should be able to decide for the rest. Neither do I argue that such people exist or are necessary.