2 ms·

I'm not sure it is a _false_ dichotomy though. GP is basically saying there are two options. 1. Absolute free speech 2. People who have the power to censor,

I'm not sure it is a _false_ dichotomy though. GP is basically saying there are two options. 1. Absolute free speech 2. People who have the power to censor, and abuse it You're basically just adding a third option 3. People who have the power to censor, and don't abuse it. I think many people would argue that #3 is impossible, and an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree that power isn't being abused in #3. In which case, GP's original 2 options are not a false dichotomy, and are simply the reality of the situation. edit: formatting

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
>I think many people would argue that #3 is impossible, and an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree that power isn't being abused in #3. In which case, GP's original 2 options are not a false dichotomy, and are simply the reality of the situation. I think many people would argue that #3 is not impossible, or an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree power is always being abused in #2. In which case, GP's original 2 options are indeed a false dichotomy, rather than the reality of the situation.
ss108 5y ago
Wouldn't the very situation of a platform like Twitter censoring or moderating the speech on the platform represent a kind of middle-ground? It's a private company, and one can start another one that caters to a different crowd (see Parler or w/e). The government is in no position to stop that, and nobody in this thread is arguing they be given such power. As far as truly public spaces go, the law still allows all speech. Government can't stop someone from voicing their opinion at a public meeting based on content, etc. Even if it's Covid misinformation or something.

2 ms·

I'm not sure it is a _false_ dichotomy though. GP is basically saying there are two options. 1. Absolute free speech 2. People who have the power to censor,

by spiderice 5y ago

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
>I think many people would argue that #3 is impossible, and an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree that power isn't being abused in #3. In which case, GP's original 2 options are not a false dichotomy, and are simply the reality of the situation. I think many people would argue that #3 is not impossible, or an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree power is always being abused in #2. In which case, GP's original 2 options are indeed a false dichotomy, rather than the reality of the situation.
ss108 5y ago
Wouldn't the very situation of a platform like Twitter censoring or moderating the speech on the platform represent a kind of middle-ground? It's a private company, and one can start another one that caters to a different crowd (see Parler or w/e). The government is in no position to stop that, and nobody in this thread is arguing they be given such power. As far as truly public spaces go, the law still allows all speech. Government can't stop someone from voicing their opinion at a public meeting based on content, etc. Even if it's Covid misinformation or something.