4 ms·
By asking "is there anyone you trust to be the arbiter of truth", 'free speech' is being invoked in the spirit of "I benefit from being able to hear awful/wrong
by rgoulter 5y ago
By asking "is there anyone you trust to be the arbiter of truth", 'free speech' is being invoked in the spirit of "I benefit from being able to hear awful/wrong/contrarian opinions, because sometimes they'll contain valuable truths I otherwise wouldn't be able to hear".
I think 'free speech' as "government can't suppress people" and "people get to say what they want, including saying that others are wrong" doesn't quite capture the fallibility.
- gary_0 5y agoI'm still not sure how this take on free speech is relevant to this thread. Reddit is a private enterprise, and they can choose to publish misinformation, or not. Surely you're not suggesting they somehow be forced to publish any misinformation their users wish to post? That would be a form of the very suppression you seem to be arguing against.
- rgoulter 5y agoTake the example "newspaper publishes what people claim is lies, people complain". If the newspaper is wrong, it's a good thing that people complain and get the lies stopped. If the newspaper is right, it's a bad thing that people complain and get the truth they dislike stopped. (An ideal in both cases would be that rational discussion is able to have lies disproved). The "I want to hear awful ideas" is a cynical belief that it's possible for society to be deluded, and suppress important truths that they don't like. I don't think this necessarily means "no moderation anywhere, ever"; although I think it does mean "don't want total moderation everywhere". I think it's more complex than that. It's just possible that by moderating away unpleasant things, truths are lost. - Reddit's apparently decided it no longer wants to host its most awful subreddits.