5 ms·
I think Facebook, as well as other social media, are a grand experiment of Karl Popper's "The Paradox of Tolerance." [0] In keeping a largely hands-off approach
by JamesLeonis 5y ago
I think Facebook, as well as other social media, are a grand experiment of Karl Popper's "The Paradox of Tolerance." [0] In keeping a largely hands-off approach to moderation they functionally provided the preconditions for such an experiment.
> Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- cwp 5y agoPolicing thought crime never ends well. Intolerance toward intolerance sounds great until you get into the thorny questions of "what even is intolerance" and "who gets to decide what's intolerant"? I mean, it's right there in the quote: the intolerant might not be willing to have a rational debate, so we should criminalize the expression of intolerance. Our enemies might choose violence instead of debate, so we should apply state violence to prevent debate.
- quotemstr 5y agoAnd who should get to decide what's "intolerant"? You? Why? This "paradox of tolerance" thing is just a cudgel used to advocate for censorship, and people who bring it out (who I suspect have never read anything else Poppe wrote) seldom discuss the logical implications of the view they're espousing. The "paradox of tolerance", in other words, is nothing more than a thought terminating cliche.
- im3w1l 5y agoThe funny thing is that such a use turns it on its head. Censorship is exactly "refusing to meet on the level of rational argument". Censorship is exactly "denouncing argument". Censorship is exactly "forbid their followers to listen". If anything, Popper is saying that Republicans need to get violent.
- sp332 5y agoI don't think it's relevant. Facebook's moderation is not "hands-off", they actively promote conspiracy theories and extremist groups. Facebook's lying to shareholders and Congress is not a paradox of tolerance.
- WriterGuy2021 5y agoThis is just so ridiculous because "rational argument" is notoriously difficult to define. Descartes believed logic itself was a form of rhetoric. I forget where he wrote this comment, but its context included a very interesting discussion about the relation of logic to philosophy. We are all acquainted with logic here. We know that all logical deductions arise from a foundation of axioms. In the domain of human affairs, axioms are akin to belief. Therefore, each set of beliefs lends themselves to a different set of deductions. Who is to say which set of beliefs are the right ones? If I believe in the Christian God, and I say that abortion should be illegal because it is the taking of a sacred life. Am I being irrational? This "paradox" that is constantly brought up is just absurd. I must believe that Popper said this in passing and didn't take it too seriously, but perhaps someone can correct me.
- fullshark 5y agoConsidering most people consume fb/instagram via an algorithmic feed, hard to see either site as being "hands off."
- someguy5344523 5y agoI don't really like this paradox, since censorship is always justified in the name of protecting society. "We have to censor criticism of the king/the church/communism/etc, since they hold our country together". Plus, its very easy to say "My ideology is very tolerant, therefore by definition anyone who disagrees with me is intolerant".