3 ms·

You're doing it right, opposing bad information with good. All of what you say here makes sense, including "This is why you shouldn't get your medical advice fr

You're doing it right, opposing bad information with good. All of what you say here makes sense, including "This is why you shouldn't get your medical advice from Joe Rogan." Where that breaks down is when that turns into, "This is why you shouldn't be allowed to get your medical advice from Joe Rogan." People make unwise choices all the time, and when we try to prevent them from doing so coercively, we fall into a pit of unintended consequences. When people see powerful people suppressing a point of view, it makes it more sympathetic to many of them, even if they would otherwise have rejected it as unreasoned.

toss1 5y ago
>>Where that breaks down is when that turns into, "This is why you shouldn't be allowed to get your medical advice from Joe Rogan." People make unwise choices all the time, and when we try to prevent them from doing so coercively, we fall into a pit of unintended consequences. Depends on the coercion. Taking action against false advertising of medical benefits is and should be under the purview of qualified government agencies, and should be a private cause of action. E.g., the FDA and FTC have jurisdiction over false claims in drug and food advertising [0-2]. This is an unqualified good thing. It would be a large net benefit to society if these are also extended beyond specific paid-for standard-format advertising claims but also persistent promotion of false and unsubstantiated claims by jucksters like Joe Rogan, whether or not it is the result of direct paid promotion or just as part of his self-promoting schtick to increase it popularity with contrary opinions, and without regard to the number of people he will literally kill with his bad advice. If you want the libertarian version, then when Jack's relative takes bad advice from adverts or some on-air huckster, then he has a cause of action to sue (and of course must establish that the relative relied on that advice and died from following the advised course of action, and that Jack has suffered losses). Yes, countering disinformation is a thorny problem, but resorting to First Amendment absolutism is intellectually lazy at best. It feels like having a nice solid black&white answer, but it is not, since the result of the answer is the destruction of society. Bigger challenges and higher complexity society require more complex answers (and NO, simple censorship isn't the answer either). [0] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/office-prescription-drug-promotion/bad-ad-program https://www.fda.gov/drugs/office-prescription-drug-promotion... [1] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/prescription-drug-advertising/background-drug-advertising https://www.fda.gov/drugs/prescription-drug-advertising/back... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  > ...resorting to First Amendment absolutism is intellectually lazy at best. It feels like having a nice solid black&white answer, but it is not, since the result of the answer is the destruction of society. That's quite an assertion, but I notice you back it up with nothing at all. What you describe as the libertarian version is the non-cartoon version of "First Amendment absolutism": you can say what you want, but you're not immune from demonstrable consequences of what you say. There's nothing in that position that requires or suggests that people should be coercively prevented from speech that is unpopular, incomplete, or incorrect. In that light, the objections you present mostly fail to address my point. The only exception is your extension of the FDA and FTC rules regarding food and drug advertising to non-advertising speech, which would present a lot of practical problems, creating a vast opening for frivolous and harassing lawsuits against public figures and discouraging the expression of much valid and worthwhile opinion. I'd oppose it, and I can't imagine that it would find support outside the sort of election-year rhetoric that evaporates on contact with reality.
  - toss1 5y ago
    Right, so you are perfectly fine with allowing deliberate disinformation campaigns to run rampant even when they literally kill people, and backing it up with nothing at all. And not even seeking a solution. Got it Are you also against regulating speech that amounts to yelling "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater and/or inciting a riot or insurrection? I could also say 'fine, if intentional disinformation kills people, that's fine, let them go at it, it is just a stupidity tax' Except I also understand the value of a society that is at least minimally cohesive and retains a stably democratic (small-d) foundation, and see the hard evidence that active disinformation amplified by mass media, especially interactive mass media can completely undermine that, and is literally a direct threat to democracy. I'm interested in finding a solution and it will need to be more refined than a simple absolutist edict written centuries before mass media and interactive mass media were invented.
    - JasonFruit 5y ago
      When someone insists on redefining your position before they'll argue with it, it's a sure sign they have a position they'd like to attribute to you and argue with instead. You've done that twice. I'm not interested.

toss1 5y ago

>>Where that breaks down is when that turns into, "This is why you shouldn't be allowed to get your medical advice from Joe Rogan." People make unwise choices all the time, and when we try to prevent them from doing so coercively, we fall into a pit of unintended consequences. Depends on the coercion. Taking action against false advertising of medical benefits is and should be under the purview of qualified government agencies, and should be a private cause of action. E.g., the FDA and FTC have jurisdiction over false claims in drug and food advertising [0-2]. This is an unqualified good thing. It would be a large net benefit to society if these are also extended beyond specific paid-for standard-format advertising claims but also persistent promotion of false and unsubstantiated claims by jucksters like Joe Rogan, whether or not it is the result of direct paid promotion or just as part of his self-promoting schtick to increase it popularity with contrary opinions, and without regard to the number of people he will literally kill with his bad advice. If you want the libertarian version, then when Jack's relative takes bad advice from adverts or some on-air huckster, then he has a cause of action to sue (and of course must establish that the relative relied on that advice and died from following the advised course of action, and that Jack has suffered losses). Yes, countering disinformation is a thorny problem, but resorting to First Amendment absolutism is intellectually lazy at best. It feels like having a nice solid black&white answer, but it is not, since the result of the answer is the destruction of society. Bigger challenges and higher complexity society require more complex answers (and NO, simple censorship isn't the answer either). [0] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/office-prescription-drug-promotion/bad-ad-program https://www.fda.gov/drugs/office-prescription-drug-promotion... [1] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/prescription-drug-advertising/background-drug-advertising https://www.fda.gov/drugs/prescription-drug-advertising/back... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising

JasonFruit 5y ago
> ...resorting to First Amendment absolutism is intellectually lazy at best. It feels like having a nice solid black&white answer, but it is not, since the result of the answer is the destruction of society. That's quite an assertion, but I notice you back it up with nothing at all. What you describe as the libertarian version is the non-cartoon version of "First Amendment absolutism": you can say what you want, but you're not immune from demonstrable consequences of what you say. There's nothing in that position that requires or suggests that people should be coercively prevented from speech that is unpopular, incomplete, or incorrect. In that light, the objections you present mostly fail to address my point. The only exception is your extension of the FDA and FTC rules regarding food and drug advertising to non-advertising speech, which would present a lot of practical problems, creating a vast opening for frivolous and harassing lawsuits against public figures and discouraging the expression of much valid and worthwhile opinion. I'd oppose it, and I can't imagine that it would find support outside the sort of election-year rhetoric that evaporates on contact with reality.
- toss1 5y ago
  Right, so you are perfectly fine with allowing deliberate disinformation campaigns to run rampant even when they literally kill people, and backing it up with nothing at all. And not even seeking a solution. Got it Are you also against regulating speech that amounts to yelling "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater and/or inciting a riot or insurrection? I could also say 'fine, if intentional disinformation kills people, that's fine, let them go at it, it is just a stupidity tax' Except I also understand the value of a society that is at least minimally cohesive and retains a stably democratic (small-d) foundation, and see the hard evidence that active disinformation amplified by mass media, especially interactive mass media can completely undermine that, and is literally a direct threat to democracy. I'm interested in finding a solution and it will need to be more refined than a simple absolutist edict written centuries before mass media and interactive mass media were invented.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    When someone insists on redefining your position before they'll argue with it, it's a sure sign they have a position they'd like to attribute to you and argue with instead. You've done that twice. I'm not interested.