3 ms·
>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 peop
by 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 agoI'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.