3 ms·

what happened in the past few years where we suddenly care about misinformation to the point of demanding censorship, but only for certain classes of content (i

what happened in the past few years where we suddenly care about misinformation to the point of demanding censorship, but only for certain classes of content (individual podcasters) as opposed to, for example, corporate media networks? it's interesting because the implicit assertion is that corporate media networks only ever 100% dispense the absolute truth, because if they didn't, they would get the same treatment as Rogan, right? from my perspective, the best way to counter "misinformation" on Rogan's show would be to push for people with opposite viewpoints to go on his show and refute claims made previously. even better, try to get a show going where people with opposite viewpoints hash them out live for all to see, with Rogan acting as the average guy neutral moderator! weird how that's never an option, instead the only possible solution to "misinformation" is to push for outright censorship.

rabuse 5y ago
Whoa, calm down there with arriving at a perfectly reasonable solution to challenging ideas. /s Honestly though, if you have an argument that is so concrete and based on facts and verifiable statistics, there should be no need to silence dissent. Challenge them, and let the audience form their own conclusions, and question how they arrived at sed conclusion. People have been so conditioned to just believing news links and talking heads to arrive at the conclusions for them; they don't even want to think.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  I've been getting the vibe (which is being reinforced by the downvotes) that there's a sort idea going around that we've reached some kind of critical juncture in online discourse where mere dissent doesn't work, or somehow is not good enough, when it comes to combatting mis/disinformation, and thus the only solution is silencing anyone who says anything outside of the accepted orthodoxy of "truth." I find this general mindset more broadly harmful than any specific ideas that are touted or espoused by any content creator. when did we start implicitly believing in the societal necessity of Truth Police?
  - rabuse 5y ago
    This started with Twitter's cancel culture. They gamified it in the earlier years, and saw it as a challenge (mostly teenagers and trolls), and now it's used to actually silence dissenting views. It's ingrained in the population that this is the new way of handling disagreement.
drcongo 5y ago
Here's somebody with an "opposite viewpoint" (ie: educated knowledge of actual facts) going on his show. Lemme know how well you think it turns out. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30150390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30150390

rabuse 5y ago

Whoa, calm down there with arriving at a perfectly reasonable solution to challenging ideas. /s Honestly though, if you have an argument that is so concrete and based on facts and verifiable statistics, there should be no need to silence dissent. Challenge them, and let the audience form their own conclusions, and question how they arrived at sed conclusion. People have been so conditioned to just believing news links and talking heads to arrive at the conclusions for them; they don't even want to think.

adamrezich 5y ago
I've been getting the vibe (which is being reinforced by the downvotes) that there's a sort idea going around that we've reached some kind of critical juncture in online discourse where mere dissent doesn't work, or somehow is not good enough, when it comes to combatting mis/disinformation, and thus the only solution is silencing anyone who says anything outside of the accepted orthodoxy of "truth." I find this general mindset more broadly harmful than any specific ideas that are touted or espoused by any content creator. when did we start implicitly believing in the societal necessity of Truth Police?
- rabuse 5y ago
  This started with Twitter's cancel culture. They gamified it in the earlier years, and saw it as a challenge (mostly teenagers and trolls), and now it's used to actually silence dissenting views. It's ingrained in the population that this is the new way of handling disagreement.

drcongo 5y ago

Here's somebody with an "opposite viewpoint" (ie: educated knowledge of actual facts) going on his show. Lemme know how well you think it turns out. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30150390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30150390