3 ms·

I honestly have never seen a single shred of evidence or just even common sense that backs these platitudes about trust and free expression up. Let's take anot

I honestly have never seen a single shred of evidence or just even common sense that backs these platitudes about trust and free expression up. Let's take another nation and covid as a concrete example, Singapore. In Singapore, there's not a lot of free speech. Yet there's a lot of trust. Lee Kuan Yew, in his biography, addressed this trust question very directly, and commented on American media as well. Lee Kuan Yew was very direct in prosecuting speech that put into question the authority of leadership when it faced (unfounded) criticism. His argument was that, when leadership can be cheaply criticized, there is a categorical distrust in authority because everyone is perceived as equally corrupt. Which is something that's part of almost every post in this thread as well. In a culture in which everyone is "equally bad" grifters and con artists can thrive. When looking at the Covid response, it wasn't really leadership in the US that dropped the ball. Even the fairy sketchy and controversial last administration managed to produce a free vaccine, within a year, distributed at record speed to everyone. Who didn't pick it up? The people. Who railed against it? Talk radio. And yet the line keeps being parroted that authority cannot be trusted. Merit and authority and trust are build up slowly and are hard won. When everyone can be defamed, when lie and insult comes at no cost, and if everyone can spread competing versions of reality for free you are in an environment in which trust is impossible. Not because there isn't enough criticism, but because there's too much.

Gareth321 5y ago
>Merit and authority and trust are build up slowly and are hard won. When everyone can be defamed, when lie and insult comes at no cost, and if everyone can spread competing versions of reality for free you are in an environment in which trust is impossible. Not because there isn't enough criticism, but because there's too much. This has been the war cry of despots, kings, and dictators since before recorded history. There are very few examples of it working out well for anyone. "I am preventing you from criticising me for your own good." Isn't quite as noble or virtuous as you think it is.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  Genuine question, why not? Why is paternalism bad, because it's an offensive idea to a 21st century audience? It's a funny aspect of the whole free expression thing that the only thing you cannot question, because it immediately evokes this kind of response, is the system itself. Isn't that supposed to be the point? I didn't make a war cry at all, I think fanatic questioning of authority is just the dogma of our time, in every domain, not just speech. And that's very new. We have India and China, thousands of years old civilizations still kicking without any absolutist notion of free speech, but I must accept the idea that any person can broadcast to a football stadium full of people, an experiment of the last two decades or otherwise I'm a despot?
  - Gareth321 5y ago
    There are libraries of works dedicated to this from the Enlightenment onwards. There are two tracks you can pursue here: 1. Practical examples of authoritarianism working. Does the suppression of dissent result in better life outcomes for citizens? It's a fair hypothesis, and is easy to test. Explore hundreds of civilizations over thousands of years and try to find examples of it working out well for citizens. IMHO, there aren't many. 2. Read the political, historical, and philosophical writings of the greats on this subject: John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson. They provide far better arguments against the suppression of dissent than I ever could. Their arguments are extremely well considered, extremely convincing, and backed by historical examples. Personally, I try hard to base my position on tangible evidence. "Does this thing actually result in the outcome I desire?" Because I can't find any good examples of authoritarianism working, and many good examples of democracy working, I side firmly with the latter. However, I must also admit that the internet is a major human evolution. It is unprecedented in its scale and reach. Social media is causing enormous harm, and we are operating under the de facto pretense that this harm is worth the benefits. It could be that social media is undermining how democracy works, and that we need to find a better way forward. I can admit that, but I am yet to see convincing arguments for a) the existential danger to democracy, and b) a better social structure than democracy.
dash2 5y ago
I completely disagree with you, but that was a very well put argument. I agree that the censorship/trust connection is misplaced. America has been high trust, now it’s low trust, it’s always had the second amendment. So you can’t explain a change by a constant. I think the best argument for freedom of speech is the one put forward by Mill: there is no other way to find out the truth but by letting all arguments be heard.

Gareth321 5y ago

>Merit and authority and trust are build up slowly and are hard won. When everyone can be defamed, when lie and insult comes at no cost, and if everyone can spread competing versions of reality for free you are in an environment in which trust is impossible. Not because there isn't enough criticism, but because there's too much. This has been the war cry of despots, kings, and dictators since before recorded history. There are very few examples of it working out well for anyone. "I am preventing you from criticising me for your own good." Isn't quite as noble or virtuous as you think it is.

Barrin92 5y ago
Genuine question, why not? Why is paternalism bad, because it's an offensive idea to a 21st century audience? It's a funny aspect of the whole free expression thing that the only thing you cannot question, because it immediately evokes this kind of response, is the system itself. Isn't that supposed to be the point? I didn't make a war cry at all, I think fanatic questioning of authority is just the dogma of our time, in every domain, not just speech. And that's very new. We have India and China, thousands of years old civilizations still kicking without any absolutist notion of free speech, but I must accept the idea that any person can broadcast to a football stadium full of people, an experiment of the last two decades or otherwise I'm a despot?
- Gareth321 5y ago
  There are libraries of works dedicated to this from the Enlightenment onwards. There are two tracks you can pursue here: 1. Practical examples of authoritarianism working. Does the suppression of dissent result in better life outcomes for citizens? It's a fair hypothesis, and is easy to test. Explore hundreds of civilizations over thousands of years and try to find examples of it working out well for citizens. IMHO, there aren't many. 2. Read the political, historical, and philosophical writings of the greats on this subject: John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson. They provide far better arguments against the suppression of dissent than I ever could. Their arguments are extremely well considered, extremely convincing, and backed by historical examples. Personally, I try hard to base my position on tangible evidence. "Does this thing actually result in the outcome I desire?" Because I can't find any good examples of authoritarianism working, and many good examples of democracy working, I side firmly with the latter. However, I must also admit that the internet is a major human evolution. It is unprecedented in its scale and reach. Social media is causing enormous harm, and we are operating under the de facto pretense that this harm is worth the benefits. It could be that social media is undermining how democracy works, and that we need to find a better way forward. I can admit that, but I am yet to see convincing arguments for a) the existential danger to democracy, and b) a better social structure than democracy.

dash2 5y ago

I completely disagree with you, but that was a very well put argument. I agree that the censorship/trust connection is misplaced. America has been high trust, now it’s low trust, it’s always had the second amendment. So you can’t explain a change by a constant. I think the best argument for freedom of speech is the one put forward by Mill: there is no other way to find out the truth but by letting all arguments be heard.