3 ms·

You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. Unless you're saying other people are so stupid we need to control their content so they can ma

You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. Unless you're saying other people are so stupid we need to control their content so they can make the right choices? At that moment, let's just keep everyone in a jail cell so they don't hurt themselves. Who is the arbiter of truth? The government? You?

epgui 5y ago
> You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. This is a flawed model. At some point, there is so much information that nobody can conceivably consume it all. A better mental model for this dynamic is that of pollution: can you fight pollution by making more "stuff", or at some point does it make sense to try and clean out the junk? > Unless you're saying other people are so stupid we need to control their content so they can make the right choices? Yes, to some degree. I think we need to be cautious here, and I acknowledge that there are a lot of examples of how this can go wrong. But yes, yes indeed. If people were smarter, propaganda would not work. Alas propaganda works, and it works frighteningly well. There are also plenty of examples of this in both the modern world and in History. > At that moment, let's just keep everyone in a jail cell so they don't hurt themselves. Now you're being a little hysterical. > Who is the arbiter of truth? The government? You? This might shock you, but no, and we don't need an "arbiter". Getting to the "truth" is to a large extent a decentralized process that should involve many people and communities. I would suggest that a good place to start is with the scientific consensus. For everything else, it certainly becomes a lot more complicated.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  > But yes, yes indeed. If people were smarter, propaganda would not work. Okay, so you think you know better and the government knows better. We're done here. You're the useful idiot (not an insult, a historical term) for the powers who want to censor. The propaganda is this event, you are the person they convinced. You are advocating censorship on their behalf for them. You are going against you and your people's inalienable rights of freedom of speech. I support your freedom to speak this nonsense, you should support other people's speech, but you prefer to be a tool. Shame on you.
  - epgui 5y ago
    I hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you are, sir.
- cheeseomlit 5y ago
  >This might shock you, but no, and we don't need an "arbiter". Getting to the "truth" is to a large extent a decentralized process that should involve many people and communities. Right, a "decentralized process". Which is entirely at odds with having authority figures censoring all unpopular opinions and dissent. You say we don't need an arbiter yet you argue in favor of creating one, intentionally or not.
  - epgui 5y ago
    I'm saying there doesn't need to be a single arbiter centralized in one place, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a process to regulate obviously-wrong harmful nonsense. It's a failure of the imagination to not see the difference.

epgui 5y ago

> You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. This is a flawed model. At some point, there is so much information that nobody can conceivably consume it all. A better mental model for this dynamic is that of pollution: can you fight pollution by making more "stuff", or at some point does it make sense to try and clean out the junk? > Unless you're saying other people are so stupid we need to control their content so they can make the right choices? Yes, to some degree. I think we need to be cautious here, and I acknowledge that there are a lot of examples of how this can go wrong. But yes, yes indeed. If people were smarter, propaganda would not work. Alas propaganda works, and it works frighteningly well. There are also plenty of examples of this in both the modern world and in History. > At that moment, let's just keep everyone in a jail cell so they don't hurt themselves. Now you're being a little hysterical. > Who is the arbiter of truth? The government? You? This might shock you, but no, and we don't need an "arbiter". Getting to the "truth" is to a large extent a decentralized process that should involve many people and communities. I would suggest that a good place to start is with the scientific consensus. For everything else, it certainly becomes a lot more complicated.

hunterb123 5y ago
> But yes, yes indeed. If people were smarter, propaganda would not work. Okay, so you think you know better and the government knows better. We're done here. You're the useful idiot (not an insult, a historical term) for the powers who want to censor. The propaganda is this event, you are the person they convinced. You are advocating censorship on their behalf for them. You are going against you and your people's inalienable rights of freedom of speech. I support your freedom to speak this nonsense, you should support other people's speech, but you prefer to be a tool. Shame on you.
- epgui 5y ago
  I hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you are, sir.
cheeseomlit 5y ago
>This might shock you, but no, and we don't need an "arbiter". Getting to the "truth" is to a large extent a decentralized process that should involve many people and communities. Right, a "decentralized process". Which is entirely at odds with having authority figures censoring all unpopular opinions and dissent. You say we don't need an arbiter yet you argue in favor of creating one, intentionally or not.
- epgui 5y ago
  I'm saying there doesn't need to be a single arbiter centralized in one place, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a process to regulate obviously-wrong harmful nonsense. It's a failure of the imagination to not see the difference.