5 ms·
It's not really insane, it's a difficult dilemma. To play devils advocate, why should we give our enemies the same rights as our neighbors? Both cohorts are no
by disambiguation 5y ago
It's not really insane, it's a difficult dilemma.
To play devils advocate, why should we give our enemies the same rights as our neighbors? Both cohorts are not held accountable in the same ways, nor can we expect our enemies to reciprocate the same good faith.
I think in principle free speech is good, but RT news - and any and all messaging coming out of Russia - should be classified as such. If said propaganda is disguised as genuine sentiment on social media then that's bad for free speech.
- jbverschoor 5y agoLet’s block all advertorials or posts that are biased. Ads used to be called “commercial propaganda”
- disambiguation 5y agoThat's not what I'm suggesting. The problem is ultimately anonymity, and people trusting anonymous posts as face value. If we had a rigorous identity layer, a lot of this would be resolved.
- jbverschoor 5y agoPeople also trust non-anonymous posts. You just have to form your own view based on several sources, and try to verify / dismiss some of them. Put everything together, hopefully not like in the movies (wall full of pictures, thumbtacks, and rope)
- disambiguation 5y agoSure identified sources can be bad actors too, but that doesn't really matter w.r.t free speech. For one, the effects are asymmetric. Anonymous bad actors can do more harm than identified sources can do good. Identity discourages bad behavior. Second, free speech and other ideals of liberalism assume that people are fundamentally good. So if the identified sources are openly bad actors such that they out weigh the good actors, then you're kind of screwed regardless.