4 ms·

It is perfectly within your free speech rights to decide not to associate with anyone for any reason, and to argue that others should do the same. It is not pro

It is perfectly within your free speech rights to decide not to associate with anyone for any reason, and to argue that others should do the same. It is not pro free speech to use your free speech rights to attempt to suppress the speech of others. Pro free speech would be for Young to use his visibility to highlight rebuttals of claimed misinformation. Arguments, not suppression, are how you win back people who have lost trust in institutions. Suppression just amplifies the distrust. It leaves a largely clear field for these heterodox doctors to command, because lacking rebuttals, many of their claims sound quite convincing. And people are being convinced in large numbers.

prohobo 5y ago
I agree with your comment, but disagree about the use of the word "misinformation". That word is clearly a propaganda tool used to suppress dissent, similar to "conspiracy theorist" or "white supremacist". If people are going to argue against views they don't approve of, they should do it fairly and not resort to what is essentially state-sponsored slander.
- hirundo 5y ago
  I agree, and changed the reference to "claimed misinformation".
katzgrau 5y ago
Agreed, although there exists the problem where it's a lot easier to produce bullshit than refute it. Perhaps it's just a reality we must contend with.
- scantis 5y ago
  Therefore information to refute BS becomes more valuable. That it's easy to lie is not a sufficient argument for censorship.
  - tzs 5y ago
    No one has yet proposed a mechanism other than some form of censorship that actually works to deal with the problem of the amount of BS totally overwhelming the time and ability of the average person to have even a ghost of chance of telling what is BS and what is not, except perhaps by becoming sufficiently authoritarian so take away the rights and powers of people to make decisions that believing the bullshit would affect. But sufficiently authoritarian regimes usually also heavily censor, so you still end up censorship even in that case. I'd love to hear an alternative that is actually known to work for societies that are both large and have near zero costs to produce and widely spread information.
    - HKH2 5y ago
      I haven't yet read or heard a single argument for why Robert Malone is wrong. Not even a weak one. All I've seen so far are appeals to authority.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > easier to produce bullshit than refute it. This goes both ways
  - tzs 5y ago
    What would going both ways be in this case?
    - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
      What is your opinion on cloth masks and has that been your opinion throughout the pandemic? If not, why did it change and why was it different previously?
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
So someone can effectively break "the system" by drowning it in misinformation (or bullshit of any sort), because the only allowable response is "argument"? Hmm, this sounds like a well-known political strategy both at the national and international level. This is also isomorphous to the problem that exists when deciding how tolerant to be of intolerance. Your insistence that the only response to "the wrong thing" is "do the right thing" is a major weakness with "the right thing". I'm not saying that "do the right thing" is a bad idea, just that if that is your only response, you've got a massive weak spot that can be disastrously exploited by bad actors.
- prohobo 5y ago
  What bad actors? Since when is "argument" not effective? Who drowns the media in misinformation: normal people, or organizations? Are you calling for an end to argumentation, and instead a resort to force? Are you saying Joe Rogan is a politically motivated misinformation source, intentionally trying to destabilize our society?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > Are you calling for an end to argumentation I am pointing out a paradox. Since you seem particularly motivated by the misinformation context, I'll just point more the paradox of tolerance. I believe that is good to be tolerant, even of intolerance. But there's also no doubt in my mind that if you are too tolerant of intolerance, you can end up allowing the destruction of a tolerant society. So what should one do? Clearly the answer is not "Don't be tolerant". But how can you know where the line is, or should be? The point is that certain stances toward the world, such as tolerance, have an inherent weak spot that can exploited by people who want to do so, and that AFAIK there is no way of defending that weak spot without risking violating those positions. So it's a paradox. So to repeat: I'm not calling for anything, I'm pointing out that things are not as simple as "defeat bad speech with more speech".
    - prohobo 5y ago
      Tolerance is not a weakness, what you're referring to is an inept government and broken society. A strong culture and society has no issue with creating reasonable rules to live by that work for the majority of people. Misinformation is an artifact of our decaying society, so what exactly is the "paradox" here? The paradox of suppressing discussion that tries to deal with societal rot? To what end? Why not actually fix the problem? This problem should be easy to solve, but isn't because someone is getting in the way.

prohobo 5y ago

I agree with your comment, but disagree about the use of the word "misinformation". That word is clearly a propaganda tool used to suppress dissent, similar to "conspiracy theorist" or "white supremacist". If people are going to argue against views they don't approve of, they should do it fairly and not resort to what is essentially state-sponsored slander.

hirundo 5y ago
I agree, and changed the reference to "claimed misinformation".

katzgrau 5y ago

Agreed, although there exists the problem where it's a lot easier to produce bullshit than refute it. Perhaps it's just a reality we must contend with.

scantis 5y ago
Therefore information to refute BS becomes more valuable. That it's easy to lie is not a sufficient argument for censorship.
- tzs 5y ago
  No one has yet proposed a mechanism other than some form of censorship that actually works to deal with the problem of the amount of BS totally overwhelming the time and ability of the average person to have even a ghost of chance of telling what is BS and what is not, except perhaps by becoming sufficiently authoritarian so take away the rights and powers of people to make decisions that believing the bullshit would affect. But sufficiently authoritarian regimes usually also heavily censor, so you still end up censorship even in that case. I'd love to hear an alternative that is actually known to work for societies that are both large and have near zero costs to produce and widely spread information.
  - HKH2 5y ago
    I haven't yet read or heard a single argument for why Robert Malone is wrong. Not even a weak one. All I've seen so far are appeals to authority.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
ekianjo 5y ago
> easier to produce bullshit than refute it. This goes both ways
- tzs 5y ago
  What would going both ways be in this case?
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    What is your opinion on cloth masks and has that been your opinion throughout the pandemic? If not, why did it change and why was it different previously?

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

So someone can effectively break "the system" by drowning it in misinformation (or bullshit of any sort), because the only allowable response is "argument"? Hmm, this sounds like a well-known political strategy both at the national and international level. This is also isomorphous to the problem that exists when deciding how tolerant to be of intolerance. Your insistence that the only response to "the wrong thing" is "do the right thing" is a major weakness with "the right thing". I'm not saying that "do the right thing" is a bad idea, just that if that is your only response, you've got a massive weak spot that can be disastrously exploited by bad actors.

prohobo 5y ago
What bad actors? Since when is "argument" not effective? Who drowns the media in misinformation: normal people, or organizations? Are you calling for an end to argumentation, and instead a resort to force? Are you saying Joe Rogan is a politically motivated misinformation source, intentionally trying to destabilize our society?
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > Are you calling for an end to argumentation I am pointing out a paradox. Since you seem particularly motivated by the misinformation context, I'll just point more the paradox of tolerance. I believe that is good to be tolerant, even of intolerance. But there's also no doubt in my mind that if you are too tolerant of intolerance, you can end up allowing the destruction of a tolerant society. So what should one do? Clearly the answer is not "Don't be tolerant". But how can you know where the line is, or should be? The point is that certain stances toward the world, such as tolerance, have an inherent weak spot that can exploited by people who want to do so, and that AFAIK there is no way of defending that weak spot without risking violating those positions. So it's a paradox. So to repeat: I'm not calling for anything, I'm pointing out that things are not as simple as "defeat bad speech with more speech".
  - prohobo 5y ago
    Tolerance is not a weakness, what you're referring to is an inept government and broken society. A strong culture and society has no issue with creating reasonable rules to live by that work for the majority of people. Misinformation is an artifact of our decaying society, so what exactly is the "paradox" here? The paradox of suppressing discussion that tries to deal with societal rot? To what end? Why not actually fix the problem? This problem should be easy to solve, but isn't because someone is getting in the way.