7 ms·

> ..the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who di

> ..the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error. John Stuart Mill https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html

smackeyacky 4y ago
With respect, the handbill or pamphlet was about the most subversive means of communication he saw, in an age when literacy wasn't universal. The social media morass is something entirely different. There is no precedent for the mass hysteria of something as dumb as Qanon. Dead presidents dead children emerging from the grave to save the world? Oh wait...Jesus...David..rocks...easter. Nvm.
- op00to 4y ago
  It took hundreds of years of proselytizing by some very highly educated people for Jesus David rocks Easter to have an affect on the world. Today, people who barely can string coherent thoughts together can have an instant platform to spread idiocy. I guess what I’m saying is the risk is much greater now for idiocy to take over than before.
- deadpannini 4y ago
  The main change new technologies bring is that we can now see that a great many people disagree with us.
- soundnote 4y ago
  The Taiping Rebellion in Qing China between 1850 and 1864. It was started by a man called Hong Xiuquan who failed his mandarin examinations, fell into a psychosis of some kind, and came to believe he was the brother of Jesus. The cult he started was wildly successful and turned an entire province into a cultist theocracy before being quashed by the Qing.
themitigating 4y ago
There's a difference between opinions and misinformation, at least how I see it. "Covid isn't dangerous" is an opinion. "Covid doesn't exist" is misinformation.
- _vdpp 4y ago
  “Misinformation” is being used as a cudgel to suppress opinions or even facts that are, say - inconvenient - for someone’s narrative though. Completely reasonable differences in opinion about the risk, origin, or proper mitigation of COVID were blasted as “misinformation” before they were eventually accepted by the wider establishment. The initial rush to completely censor such discussion early on is what caused all this free speech ruckus. There’s always been nutty conspiracy talk, scams, hoaxes, lies, ignorance - especially on the internet - and we’ve learned to filter it out. The “misinformation” label is going to backfire, though. Instead of ignoring it, people are going to take a closer look, because there’s probably something there that the labeler finds inconvenient. If it was simply untrue, then say so, call it “not true” or a “lie.” Instead, “misinformation” is this kind of 1984-ish weasel word used to discredit inconvenient facts while maintaining plausible deniability when they turn out to be correct.
  - vxNsr 4y ago
    > Instead, “misinformation” is this kind of 1984-ish weasel word used to discredit inconvenient facts while maintaining plausible deniability when they turn out to be correct. This is so well stated I’ve saved it with attribution for future reference and quoting. You’ve hit the crux of the problem people today have with society at large. It truly feels like we’re living in the on ramp to one of the dystopian novels from our youth, 1984, the giver, etc. Large swaths of society see nothing wrong with controlling people’s thought.
  - dukeofdoom 4y ago
    As someone that was always very skeptical of the claimed effectiveness of the vaccine, despite the claims of its effectiveness by the experts at the time from both administrations. I feel vindicated when real world numbers come out like this. https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.jsp https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.j... Page 3, showing the unvaccinated testing at a much lower rate for covid than the double or triple vaccinated despite being forced to take a lot more tests. I just assume it's easier to claim success than to actually achieve it. I also took a few stat courses at university, and saw problems with claims being made at that time. So I opted to wait. Now I'm glad I did.
thrwy_918 4y ago
As many as 15% of Americans may hold QAnon beliefs [1]. Where is the evidence that "the opportunity of exchanging error for truth" is actually being seized? It's all very well making an argument from principle, but if the real-world outcome is tens of millions of people believing absurd and dangerous conspiracy theories, I don't find the argument from principle very persuasive. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/us/politics/qanon-republicans-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/us/politics/qanon-republi...
- Veen 4y ago
  The evidence is that it's only 15%. Free speech doesn't guarantee everyone will have right beliefs. In fact, it's a certainly that in a free speech environment lots of people will have crazy beliefs. Free speech does, however, guarantee that no one group can control which ideas—crazy or not—can be expressed. And that, in the long run, ensures that there will be space to push back against the crazy and the harmful, which tends to be good for the less powerful.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    If you're celerating that "only" 15% of people believe the most obvious bullshit anyone could possibly cook up, then your plan is flawed.
    - Veen 4y ago
      What would a non-flawed plan look like? One that results in everyone having "correct" beliefs? I'm pretty sure it would be a great deal worse than what we have now.
      - kadoban 4y ago
        Nuking social media from orbit would be a good start. Any platform where what content you're shown is primarily driven by an algorithm is very suspect.
        4y ago
SantalBlush 4y ago
John Stuart Mill was wrong. It is absolutely possible to convince someone who holds a correct opinion that their opinion is wrong. This is a major blind spot of otherwise intelligent, thinking people: they believe that once a person is presented with the truth, it magically reveals itself to them as the superior piece of knowledge and the scales suddenly fall from their eyes. It's utter nonsense, and people don't work this way. *Edit: To my replies, I'm addressing an epistemological assumption with this particular comment, not making a broader judgement one way or the other about Twitter's handling of speech. I don't care about Hunter Biden or whatever pet issue you have with the media.
- replygirl 4y ago
  And do you think an environment where undesirable ideas are suppressed would be conducive to believers changing their minds? Or do you think maybe those ideas would become further entrenched and evolve into QAnon and vaccine microchip theory?
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  And it is even easier to convince someone who holds a correct opinion that their opinion is wrong, if you ban and suppress correct opinion.
- mostertoaster 4y ago
  “Correct” opinion, is also subjective. Someone thought let’s say the hunter biden laptop story was true at first, then someone convinced them it was wrong, because of censure. And maybe that opinion was “wrong” because it didn’t promote some agenda or worldview that the majority hold. What is true, and what is correct aren’t always the same thing. In 1984 the correct answer to 2+2 is 5.
colinmhayes 4y ago
Mill is one of my favorite philosophers, but his ideas on free speech need to be updated due to the internet. The amount of power technology gives us would have been inconceivable to him. There's no doubt in my mind the On Liberty would be a completely different book if he published it today.

smackeyacky 4y ago

With respect, the handbill or pamphlet was about the most subversive means of communication he saw, in an age when literacy wasn't universal. The social media morass is something entirely different. There is no precedent for the mass hysteria of something as dumb as Qanon. Dead presidents dead children emerging from the grave to save the world? Oh wait...Jesus...David..rocks...easter. Nvm.

op00to 4y ago
It took hundreds of years of proselytizing by some very highly educated people for Jesus David rocks Easter to have an affect on the world. Today, people who barely can string coherent thoughts together can have an instant platform to spread idiocy. I guess what I’m saying is the risk is much greater now for idiocy to take over than before.
deadpannini 4y ago
The main change new technologies bring is that we can now see that a great many people disagree with us.
soundnote 4y ago
The Taiping Rebellion in Qing China between 1850 and 1864. It was started by a man called Hong Xiuquan who failed his mandarin examinations, fell into a psychosis of some kind, and came to believe he was the brother of Jesus. The cult he started was wildly successful and turned an entire province into a cultist theocracy before being quashed by the Qing.

themitigating 4y ago

There's a difference between opinions and misinformation, at least how I see it. "Covid isn't dangerous" is an opinion. "Covid doesn't exist" is misinformation.

_vdpp 4y ago
“Misinformation” is being used as a cudgel to suppress opinions or even facts that are, say - inconvenient - for someone’s narrative though. Completely reasonable differences in opinion about the risk, origin, or proper mitigation of COVID were blasted as “misinformation” before they were eventually accepted by the wider establishment. The initial rush to completely censor such discussion early on is what caused all this free speech ruckus. There’s always been nutty conspiracy talk, scams, hoaxes, lies, ignorance - especially on the internet - and we’ve learned to filter it out. The “misinformation” label is going to backfire, though. Instead of ignoring it, people are going to take a closer look, because there’s probably something there that the labeler finds inconvenient. If it was simply untrue, then say so, call it “not true” or a “lie.” Instead, “misinformation” is this kind of 1984-ish weasel word used to discredit inconvenient facts while maintaining plausible deniability when they turn out to be correct.
- vxNsr 4y ago
  > Instead, “misinformation” is this kind of 1984-ish weasel word used to discredit inconvenient facts while maintaining plausible deniability when they turn out to be correct. This is so well stated I’ve saved it with attribution for future reference and quoting. You’ve hit the crux of the problem people today have with society at large. It truly feels like we’re living in the on ramp to one of the dystopian novels from our youth, 1984, the giver, etc. Large swaths of society see nothing wrong with controlling people’s thought.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  As someone that was always very skeptical of the claimed effectiveness of the vaccine, despite the claims of its effectiveness by the experts at the time from both administrations. I feel vindicated when real world numbers come out like this. https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.jsp https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.j... Page 3, showing the unvaccinated testing at a much lower rate for covid than the double or triple vaccinated despite being forced to take a lot more tests. I just assume it's easier to claim success than to actually achieve it. I also took a few stat courses at university, and saw problems with claims being made at that time. So I opted to wait. Now I'm glad I did.

thrwy_918 4y ago

As many as 15% of Americans may hold QAnon beliefs [1]. Where is the evidence that "the opportunity of exchanging error for truth" is actually being seized? It's all very well making an argument from principle, but if the real-world outcome is tens of millions of people believing absurd and dangerous conspiracy theories, I don't find the argument from principle very persuasive. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/us/politics/qanon-republicans-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/us/politics/qanon-republi...

Veen 4y ago
The evidence is that it's only 15%. Free speech doesn't guarantee everyone will have right beliefs. In fact, it's a certainly that in a free speech environment lots of people will have crazy beliefs. Free speech does, however, guarantee that no one group can control which ideas—crazy or not—can be expressed. And that, in the long run, ensures that there will be space to push back against the crazy and the harmful, which tends to be good for the less powerful.
- kadoban 4y ago
  If you're celerating that "only" 15% of people believe the most obvious bullshit anyone could possibly cook up, then your plan is flawed.
  - Veen 4y ago
    What would a non-flawed plan look like? One that results in everyone having "correct" beliefs? I'm pretty sure it would be a great deal worse than what we have now.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      Nuking social media from orbit would be a good start. Any platform where what content you're shown is primarily driven by an algorithm is very suspect.
      - 4y ago

SantalBlush 4y ago

John Stuart Mill was wrong. It is absolutely possible to convince someone who holds a correct opinion that their opinion is wrong. This is a major blind spot of otherwise intelligent, thinking people: they believe that once a person is presented with the truth, it magically reveals itself to them as the superior piece of knowledge and the scales suddenly fall from their eyes. It's utter nonsense, and people don't work this way. *Edit: To my replies, I'm addressing an epistemological assumption with this particular comment, not making a broader judgement one way or the other about Twitter's handling of speech. I don't care about Hunter Biden or whatever pet issue you have with the media.

replygirl 4y ago
And do you think an environment where undesirable ideas are suppressed would be conducive to believers changing their minds? Or do you think maybe those ideas would become further entrenched and evolve into QAnon and vaccine microchip theory?
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
And it is even easier to convince someone who holds a correct opinion that their opinion is wrong, if you ban and suppress correct opinion.
mostertoaster 4y ago
“Correct” opinion, is also subjective. Someone thought let’s say the hunter biden laptop story was true at first, then someone convinced them it was wrong, because of censure. And maybe that opinion was “wrong” because it didn’t promote some agenda or worldview that the majority hold. What is true, and what is correct aren’t always the same thing. In 1984 the correct answer to 2+2 is 5.

colinmhayes 4y ago

Mill is one of my favorite philosophers, but his ideas on free speech need to be updated due to the internet. The amount of power technology gives us would have been inconceivable to him. There's no doubt in my mind the On Liberty would be a completely different book if he published it today.