3 ms·

While I agree the elites are upset about losing power, there absolutely are issues of principle here. There is such a thing as legitimate authority. For examp

While I agree the elites are upset about losing power, there absolutely are issues of principle here. There is such a thing as legitimate authority. For example - there are people who do actual science, and other people who actually can read scientific papers and make assessments, there are people who have legitimate basic understanding of science, relationships with scientists, and consistently communicate reasonable information about that, as it relates to our world. And there are people who make stuff up. And very influential actors who will use a system without information integrity to their advantage. These people wield enormous power and fundamentally shape outcomes for everyone. Both the Truth, and the Public Good matter. While the later is more ambiguous, it's also material. The question the becomes - how do we allow yahoos in their basements to say anything they want publicly (i.e. aliens invented COVID, the vaccine will kill you), how do we allow legitimate detractors to question classical authority (i.e. ivermectin might work), how do we try to unbias information when it's politically contentious (i.e. mask policies), how do we allow politicians to speak their minds, but to not destroy their communities with irrational or completely irresponsible information (i.e. 'the vaccine isn't safe, you don't need masks, just eat healthy )'. I'm afraid we don't have the answers, but maybe some degree of 'proportional oversight' on the most public bits of information might be reasonable i.e. statements about the vaccine, when they reach a certain threshold of popularity, must have references to actual studies, or something along those lines.

quotemstr 5y ago
> The question the becomes - how do we allow yahoos in their basements to say anything they want publicly (i.e. aliens invented COVID, the vaccine will kill you), how do we allow legitimate detractors to question classical authority (i.e. ivermectin might work), how do we try to unbias information when it's politically contentious (i.e. mask policies), how do we allow politicians to speak their minds, but to not destroy their communities with irrational or completely irresponsible information (i.e. 'the vaccine isn't safe, you don't need masks, just eat healthy )'. How do "we" this? How do "we" that? Who determines what constitutes the group of "we"? Power to censor inevitably, invariably, and irreversibly gets used to simple deceive and propagandize people in favor of what the censor wants. Safety is no excuse either --- every tyranny begins with the excuse that unusual powers are necessitated by some emergency. There is no such thing as "irresponsible information". I reject the entire concept. There are only competing truth claims, and some nebulous "we" made up of journalists and tech activists has no more legitimate basis for policing speech than anyone else. There is no "legitimate authority" over people's minds. You're right here that there is an issue of principle underlying the double standard: the principle is that some people think that they ought to control what other people thing, ostensibly for their own good. I wish they would at least be open about this principle.
- jollybean 5y ago
  'We' work together as a community and groups of communities. Traditionally through Classical Liberal institutions like 'Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary' with elected representatives for oversight, but more realistically also through the '4th Branch of Government' i.e. the Central Bank, the security apparatus (Military, FBI, NSA, CIA), a Free Media with integrity (believe it or not, they don't just publish whatever, there are norms and standards), the '5th Estate' i.e. people with voices outside the norm, the Academic community, Industry, NGOs, Faith Groups, Cultural Institutions. Other nations and international bodies. You're confusing a bit the legitimate motivation for regulation, with the means by which bad actors take power (i.e. we can't use security as a measure because then Stalin will come along). 'Security' is 100% a material issue, it's not even an argument - there are bad actors trying to do bad things all day long from petty violence to terrorism to invasion etc.. What that means is we have to take special care in those scenarios, usually by means of oversight and proportionality. For example, the police can't just go into your home, they need a warrant, signed by a judge etc.. The laws the security apparatus use have oversight by elected officials. There are no rules for this FB issue, it's the Wild West, and because it touches on issues of censorship, security, politics and now Public Health ... it's a tough one.

quotemstr 5y ago

> The question the becomes - how do we allow yahoos in their basements to say anything they want publicly (i.e. aliens invented COVID, the vaccine will kill you), how do we allow legitimate detractors to question classical authority (i.e. ivermectin might work), how do we try to unbias information when it's politically contentious (i.e. mask policies), how do we allow politicians to speak their minds, but to not destroy their communities with irrational or completely irresponsible information (i.e. 'the vaccine isn't safe, you don't need masks, just eat healthy )'. How do "we" this? How do "we" that? Who determines what constitutes the group of "we"? Power to censor inevitably, invariably, and irreversibly gets used to simple deceive and propagandize people in favor of what the censor wants. Safety is no excuse either --- every tyranny begins with the excuse that unusual powers are necessitated by some emergency. There is no such thing as "irresponsible information". I reject the entire concept. There are only competing truth claims, and some nebulous "we" made up of journalists and tech activists has no more legitimate basis for policing speech than anyone else. There is no "legitimate authority" over people's minds. You're right here that there is an issue of principle underlying the double standard: the principle is that some people think that they ought to control what other people thing, ostensibly for their own good. I wish they would at least be open about this principle.

jollybean 5y ago
'We' work together as a community and groups of communities. Traditionally through Classical Liberal institutions like 'Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary' with elected representatives for oversight, but more realistically also through the '4th Branch of Government' i.e. the Central Bank, the security apparatus (Military, FBI, NSA, CIA), a Free Media with integrity (believe it or not, they don't just publish whatever, there are norms and standards), the '5th Estate' i.e. people with voices outside the norm, the Academic community, Industry, NGOs, Faith Groups, Cultural Institutions. Other nations and international bodies. You're confusing a bit the legitimate motivation for regulation, with the means by which bad actors take power (i.e. we can't use security as a measure because then Stalin will come along). 'Security' is 100% a material issue, it's not even an argument - there are bad actors trying to do bad things all day long from petty violence to terrorism to invasion etc.. What that means is we have to take special care in those scenarios, usually by means of oversight and proportionality. For example, the police can't just go into your home, they need a warrant, signed by a judge etc.. The laws the security apparatus use have oversight by elected officials. There are no rules for this FB issue, it's the Wild West, and because it touches on issues of censorship, security, politics and now Public Health ... it's a tough one.