3 ms·

These things can never be black and white. The spectrum of ideas is too grey. There are many controversial subjects in humanity where free expression of ideas

These things can never be black and white. The spectrum of ideas is too grey. There are many controversial subjects in humanity where free expression of ideas may cause harm but ultimately freedom is more worthwhile than what it restricts. But there are exceptions: * GLobal pandemics with successful vaccinations where the choices we make affect the lives of millions * Global climate change, inaction (or wrong action) will affect the lives of BILLIONS.

josephcsible 5y ago
Why should those things be exceptions? And who should be in charge of deciding which viewpoints get censored?
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  All reasonable people must make their own judgement about which actions they take will result in harming others. If you don't like the choices that Google execs make support Microsoft or Yahoo. If all trees are bending to the same wind ask yourself if it is because this is reasonable and just and decide what you yourself will do if you don't believe it is.
rumblerock 5y ago
Agreed that a black and white approach here doesn't suffice. You can be concerned about over-reach and censorship, and concerned about the propagation of harmful information or misinformation. My question to those screaming censorship, which I have yet to receive a good answer on, is where they draw the line. The well known line for traditional free speech is incitement to violence or shouting fire in a crowded theater. If controlling vaccine misinformation for the sake of public health is censorship, what are the cases where controlling the propagation of patently false information isn't censorship? The internet has opened the floodgates for bad actors to flood the airwaves with bad information, whether for their own gain or for malicious purposes – to the point where the sheer volume of bad information being pumped out makes "countering bad speech with better speech" a losing battle. The algorithmic bias towards controversial topics inherent in the systems we have created are only exacerbating the issue.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Are we proposing to force private companies to serve content they consider false and/or harmful?
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
It's all fun and games until someone creates a pandemic for political reasons and you're denied the ability to question it at all. Don't read too much into that statement, I'm not referring to the current pandemic but give a sociopath (which most politicians are) a tool of great power and they will abuse it. Give them a tool with no check on that power and you're begging to be squashed by it. Creating a "Pandemic Exception" is all they need to wield that powerful tool and never ever give up power ever again.
- deanCommie 5y ago
  Zooming out I think this is a fundamental question of common sense that is not common. The American philosophy has always been to optimize for rebelling against a "tyrannical" government. That the freedom in the system must be such that if a dictator comes along, you have the guns and the freedom of speech to resist. That's all well and good [citation needed], but it's not the only way. Most of the rest of the "progressive" "western" world (quotes because these words don't mean the same thing to everyone, but i'm using here to guide our understanding of what countries we are discussing) take the perspective that optimizing a society for the worst case scenario all the time means that people will die in the streets while billionaires get wealthier. This isn't abstract, the US is the richest country in the world by a lot, but is the worst western country in the world to be poor (assuming you like to be alive) So, yes, your point is valid. There have been fascist governments. And state-manufactured famines. And all of the sorts. But i feel like your hypothetical extends the norms past their breaking point. We have solutions for these things. It can't be up to a single leader to deem a pandemic in place and be the final word on it. There must scientific consensus and multiple people elected (not appointed) to positions where they can make this judgement through science not politics.

josephcsible 5y ago

Why should those things be exceptions? And who should be in charge of deciding which viewpoints get censored?

michaelmrose 5y ago
All reasonable people must make their own judgement about which actions they take will result in harming others. If you don't like the choices that Google execs make support Microsoft or Yahoo. If all trees are bending to the same wind ask yourself if it is because this is reasonable and just and decide what you yourself will do if you don't believe it is.

rumblerock 5y ago

Agreed that a black and white approach here doesn't suffice. You can be concerned about over-reach and censorship, and concerned about the propagation of harmful information or misinformation. My question to those screaming censorship, which I have yet to receive a good answer on, is where they draw the line. The well known line for traditional free speech is incitement to violence or shouting fire in a crowded theater. If controlling vaccine misinformation for the sake of public health is censorship, what are the cases where controlling the propagation of patently false information isn't censorship? The internet has opened the floodgates for bad actors to flood the airwaves with bad information, whether for their own gain or for malicious purposes – to the point where the sheer volume of bad information being pumped out makes "countering bad speech with better speech" a losing battle. The algorithmic bias towards controversial topics inherent in the systems we have created are only exacerbating the issue.

rbanffy 5y ago
Are we proposing to force private companies to serve content they consider false and/or harmful?

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

It's all fun and games until someone creates a pandemic for political reasons and you're denied the ability to question it at all. Don't read too much into that statement, I'm not referring to the current pandemic but give a sociopath (which most politicians are) a tool of great power and they will abuse it. Give them a tool with no check on that power and you're begging to be squashed by it. Creating a "Pandemic Exception" is all they need to wield that powerful tool and never ever give up power ever again.

deanCommie 5y ago
Zooming out I think this is a fundamental question of common sense that is not common. The American philosophy has always been to optimize for rebelling against a "tyrannical" government. That the freedom in the system must be such that if a dictator comes along, you have the guns and the freedom of speech to resist. That's all well and good [citation needed], but it's not the only way. Most of the rest of the "progressive" "western" world (quotes because these words don't mean the same thing to everyone, but i'm using here to guide our understanding of what countries we are discussing) take the perspective that optimizing a society for the worst case scenario all the time means that people will die in the streets while billionaires get wealthier. This isn't abstract, the US is the richest country in the world by a lot, but is the worst western country in the world to be poor (assuming you like to be alive) So, yes, your point is valid. There have been fascist governments. And state-manufactured famines. And all of the sorts. But i feel like your hypothetical extends the norms past their breaking point. We have solutions for these things. It can't be up to a single leader to deem a pandemic in place and be the final word on it. There must scientific consensus and multiple people elected (not appointed) to positions where they can make this judgement through science not politics.