4 ms·

Why exactly is this such a problem? People have been making up bullshit stories to sell a narrative since there have been printed media (before even) and the wo

Why exactly is this such a problem? People have been making up bullshit stories to sell a narrative since there have been printed media (before even) and the world hasn't been harmed by this in any way that's remotely comparable to how much harm giving governments powers of censorship for the sake of "protecting truth and morality" has caused in real human lives and repressions. As a basic general rule, private people absolutely should have the right to lie and spread lies in most contexts except those where contractual or professional obligations intervene, or where a legitimate criminal investigation is underway or in the case of government employees in positions of trust with the public.

sellyme 5y ago
> Why exactly is this such a problem? People have been making up bullshit stories to sell a narrative since there have been printed media You've answered your own question. It's tough to get your bullshit spreading when you need to yell it in the town square. When you have instant access to hundreds of millions of idiots, it's far more dangerous.
- helloworld11 5y ago
  Oh my god, Yes! let's use new media types as an excuse to justify the same bullshit reasons for censorship of the kind that has always been so wisely, carefully used by politicians, ideologues and states throughout history. Because obviously no authority has tried that before.... Mass media is nothing new and you greatly over estimate how differently rumors and gossip circulate today vs any time in the last couple centuries. It's far too early to tell if anything about modern social networks in any way makes them comparably dangerous to the apparent proposed alternative of some authority figure dictating what people should be allowed to say. This new love of crushing certain opinions in the name of fighting misinformation is all the more surprising coming from tech types, who I remember being more oriented towards messy freedom.
  - sellyme 5y ago
    > Mass media is nothing new You literally used "before printed media" as an example. > you greatly over estimate how differently rumors and gossip circulate today vs any time in the last couple centuries No, I'm pretty sure I'm correct in saying that the Internet has made broadcasting (mis)information easier.
    - helloworld11 5y ago
      The internet has certainly made broadcasting information and misinformation both easier and faster, but that doesn't take away from my argument that the rapid mass spread of rumor and information in times previous to the internet was a definite thing. Furthermore, most importantly of all, does the ability to spread ones personal or group views rapidly via digital media justify censorship? No, it does not to anyone making a serious claim of respect for freedom of expression.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Can we not with the performative histrionics please? Media today is certainly different in that information spreads much faster. We do have some quantitative evidence that lies transmit faster than truth eg https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 We know there can be economic and political incentives to spread false news, and we also know that false information can result in avoidable suffering, eg by contributing to the spread of disease https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ I'd be great if we could address these quantifiable negative externalities as a technical rather than an emotional issue, where we would like to minimize the resulting loss of life.

sellyme 5y ago

> Why exactly is this such a problem? People have been making up bullshit stories to sell a narrative since there have been printed media You've answered your own question. It's tough to get your bullshit spreading when you need to yell it in the town square. When you have instant access to hundreds of millions of idiots, it's far more dangerous.

helloworld11 5y ago
Oh my god, Yes! let's use new media types as an excuse to justify the same bullshit reasons for censorship of the kind that has always been so wisely, carefully used by politicians, ideologues and states throughout history. Because obviously no authority has tried that before.... Mass media is nothing new and you greatly over estimate how differently rumors and gossip circulate today vs any time in the last couple centuries. It's far too early to tell if anything about modern social networks in any way makes them comparably dangerous to the apparent proposed alternative of some authority figure dictating what people should be allowed to say. This new love of crushing certain opinions in the name of fighting misinformation is all the more surprising coming from tech types, who I remember being more oriented towards messy freedom.
- sellyme 5y ago
  > Mass media is nothing new You literally used "before printed media" as an example. > you greatly over estimate how differently rumors and gossip circulate today vs any time in the last couple centuries No, I'm pretty sure I'm correct in saying that the Internet has made broadcasting (mis)information easier.
  - helloworld11 5y ago
    The internet has certainly made broadcasting information and misinformation both easier and faster, but that doesn't take away from my argument that the rapid mass spread of rumor and information in times previous to the internet was a definite thing. Furthermore, most importantly of all, does the ability to spread ones personal or group views rapidly via digital media justify censorship? No, it does not to anyone making a serious claim of respect for freedom of expression.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Can we not with the performative histrionics please? Media today is certainly different in that information spreads much faster. We do have some quantitative evidence that lies transmit faster than truth eg https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 We know there can be economic and political incentives to spread false news, and we also know that false information can result in avoidable suffering, eg by contributing to the spread of disease https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ I'd be great if we could address these quantifiable negative externalities as a technical rather than an emotional issue, where we would like to minimize the resulting loss of life.