5 ms·

First " since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned. " This is completely fals

First " since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned. " This is completely false. Nobody is barred from Twitter pre-emptively, and nobody is barred because their 'views are not aligned' More importantly, it's naive to believe that the commons can decipher the truth. They cannot - neither can you or I - in a world of total disinformation. The 'truth' does not rise to the top, rather, the ideas that are the most seductive, that appeal to our impulses and beliefs, are the ideas that rise to the top and especially if there are potent interests - and there always are i.e. Economic or Political, that 'free forums' will be controlled by those interests which will likely have nothing to do with any kind of 'truth' - which is in the public good. People are busy, and the world is complicated - so we need centres of credibility. For example - Doctors and Medical Information. That's a hugely regulated sector, because we don't want Yahoos selling you 'Cures for Cancer' when they don't work at all. And there would be a Trillion dollar business there, if were allowed, causing untold harm. We already have a lot of problems there actually. There is no 'free speech' in Medical Information. I'll use your own example against you: Do you think that Europeans are magically smarter than Russians? How is it that large number of Russians, even those who technically have access to 'outside information' come to such a deluded view of reality established by Putin? Why do you think that Europeans are going to magically enlightened and not susceptible to his made up reality? Putin has not 'cut off' Russia, he just needs to raise the barriers a little bit (i.e. VPN), because most people will just watch the propaganda otherwise. That way, he can create a 66% buy-in in Russia. If he can aggressively drive his misinformation into Europe, he could create a 15% support, and maybe 25% disinclination, enough to tilt the tables in many political situations, based on complete fabrications. In the Weimar Republic, Stalin had direct control over 17% of the Bundestag via his direct control over the German Communist Party achieved through control over popular information ie propaganda in the commons. 30% of the USA public believes that the election was stolen, which is a lie. If you take a survey among progressives about police violence against African American and ask them to put some numbers down (i.e # of unarmed African Americans being killed by police) - you'll get outrageous answers, not really based on any kind of reality. And both of those things are problems even in the current system which has 'some integrity'. All un-moderated public places turn into chaos very quickly - that's the first problem. More importantly - they will be used by forces to create the reality they want. It's fine to have a view of what Twitter should and should not be of course, if you want Elon there, that's great. But nobody who is not a Twitter investor should really care that much about 'fiduciary responsibility'. The 'Truth' is a much, much more important public good that some random guys economic interest.

thegrimmest 5y ago
> so we need centres of credibility I don't disagree, however I would hold that these centers establish themselves naturally, in absence of any regulation. There is a reason that one's reputation was of paramount importance before this regulation came into being. Well-raised people didn't fall for quackery simply because they were taught only to transact with reputable purveyors. I personally would very much like to make my own decisions based on the information available, and I don't need the government to limit my options or hold my hand in any way. I also have no problem with letting misinformed people fail to the full extent that their failure implies, including pursuing quackery for their medical ailments. I fundamentally don't think it is the government's job to protect people from their own misfortune or personal failure. The problem with "the truth" is that it substantially doesn't exist, beyond reproducible scientific inquiry. How do you know, for sure, as a matter of scientific fact, that the election wasn't tampered with in any way? I'm not suggesting that it was, only that it is unknowable. As with any question of the historical record, all we can do is look at the facts available to us and apply our best judgement. These questions are fundamentally ones on which free people should be entitled to disagree. I don't want an authority dictating what is and isn't the "right" interpretation of history or current events, simply because no authority can be relied on to get this 100% right. Being forced to conform to one lie is far, far worse than hearing many.
- jollybean 5y ago
  This thesis is full of problems: 1) Government is not 'in your way' - it's 'your government'. 2) There are absolutely some areas where governance has to be there - financial disclosures and regulation, and in Healthcare. Those are two examples where the can be no substitute. 3) "I personally would very much like to make my own decisions based on the information available, and I don't need the government to limit my options or hold my hand in any way. " You are completely incapable of doing this. Do you have a medical research team that can research every drug you take to the full extent? Do you have an auto safety team that can research and test drive every car you buy? Do you have a legal and business team that can fully research every company you work with and work for? It's absurd. We utterly depend on networks of integrity and there isn't a person who can avoid it. That said - for more common forms of information - you can access almost anything you want on the internet. So long as you're not making bombs or threatening to kill people - you can read lies, and lie if you want - to your hearts content. Twitter is not the Internet, or the Government. 4) " I also have no problem with letting misinformed people fail to the full extent that their failure implies, including pursuing quackery for their medical ailments." The lack of self awareness here is borderline offensive. In a world without regulation with respect to medical information than there is now way of determining what quackery is YOU will 100% be a victim of 'quackery' the very first time you take any medicine at all! Unless you can literally run a medical trial on every medicine you buy - then you have no clue if what you are buying is legit or not. ... unless you developed 'sources of authority'. We develop these 'sources of authority' for good reason. In the end, if you don't want to take your doctors advice, you don't have to. Nobody will stop you from ingesting poison to cure a cold, but, the rest of us want to have access to credible information, so we won't let you tell other people that your poison is a magic cure for a cold. 5) "The problem with "the truth" is that it substantially doesn't exist" This is false. " How do you know, for sure, as a matter of scientific fact, that the election wasn't tampered with in any way? I'm not suggesting that it was, only that it is unknowable. " This is absurd reasoning along the lines of: "Can you prove to me that Biden and Xi are not the same person?!? How do you know for sure!?" The election actually was tampered with. We know there are false ballots and registration with 100% certainty. We also know with very high certainty, that the issues are not widespread and that the election had integrity. In much the same way you and your bank can agree, with a high degree of certainty, how much 'money' is your digital bank account. We have process, records, oversight, validation, systems of integrity. Most things can be resolved to some reasonable factual basis. "The 2020 was not 'stolen'" - That's factual. "Ivermectin cures COVID". As far as I know, false. "COVID Vaccines are Dangerous". Well, that's an editorialisation, but the facts of the matter can definitely be established, and put into perspective. But finally this: "I don't want an authority dictating what is and isn't the "right" interpretation of history or current events," Who is trying to do that? What government is telling you what to think? We're talking about Twitter moderation. Twitter is a private company, that has some kind of relevance towards 'public commons', it means that you probably can't go on there saying things about medical technology that are completely false, and possibly not saying things about the status of state that have meaningful impact. And you can't threaten people. That's it. Nobody is telling you what to do or what to believe, but if you're trying to lie about election outcomes (and it's having a material impact on democratic legitimacy) - you're going to be off the platform. That's it. It's really not even that big of a deal.

thegrimmest 5y ago

> so we need centres of credibility I don't disagree, however I would hold that these centers establish themselves naturally, in absence of any regulation. There is a reason that one's reputation was of paramount importance before this regulation came into being. Well-raised people didn't fall for quackery simply because they were taught only to transact with reputable purveyors. I personally would very much like to make my own decisions based on the information available, and I don't need the government to limit my options or hold my hand in any way. I also have no problem with letting misinformed people fail to the full extent that their failure implies, including pursuing quackery for their medical ailments. I fundamentally don't think it is the government's job to protect people from their own misfortune or personal failure. The problem with "the truth" is that it substantially doesn't exist, beyond reproducible scientific inquiry. How do you know, for sure, as a matter of scientific fact, that the election wasn't tampered with in any way? I'm not suggesting that it was, only that it is unknowable. As with any question of the historical record, all we can do is look at the facts available to us and apply our best judgement. These questions are fundamentally ones on which free people should be entitled to disagree. I don't want an authority dictating what is and isn't the "right" interpretation of history or current events, simply because no authority can be relied on to get this 100% right. Being forced to conform to one lie is far, far worse than hearing many.

jollybean 5y ago
This thesis is full of problems: 1) Government is not 'in your way' - it's 'your government'. 2) There are absolutely some areas where governance has to be there - financial disclosures and regulation, and in Healthcare. Those are two examples where the can be no substitute. 3) "I personally would very much like to make my own decisions based on the information available, and I don't need the government to limit my options or hold my hand in any way. " You are completely incapable of doing this. Do you have a medical research team that can research every drug you take to the full extent? Do you have an auto safety team that can research and test drive every car you buy? Do you have a legal and business team that can fully research every company you work with and work for? It's absurd. We utterly depend on networks of integrity and there isn't a person who can avoid it. That said - for more common forms of information - you can access almost anything you want on the internet. So long as you're not making bombs or threatening to kill people - you can read lies, and lie if you want - to your hearts content. Twitter is not the Internet, or the Government. 4) " I also have no problem with letting misinformed people fail to the full extent that their failure implies, including pursuing quackery for their medical ailments." The lack of self awareness here is borderline offensive. In a world without regulation with respect to medical information than there is now way of determining what quackery is YOU will 100% be a victim of 'quackery' the very first time you take any medicine at all! Unless you can literally run a medical trial on every medicine you buy - then you have no clue if what you are buying is legit or not. ... unless you developed 'sources of authority'. We develop these 'sources of authority' for good reason. In the end, if you don't want to take your doctors advice, you don't have to. Nobody will stop you from ingesting poison to cure a cold, but, the rest of us want to have access to credible information, so we won't let you tell other people that your poison is a magic cure for a cold. 5) "The problem with "the truth" is that it substantially doesn't exist" This is false. " How do you know, for sure, as a matter of scientific fact, that the election wasn't tampered with in any way? I'm not suggesting that it was, only that it is unknowable. " This is absurd reasoning along the lines of: "Can you prove to me that Biden and Xi are not the same person?!? How do you know for sure!?" The election actually was tampered with. We know there are false ballots and registration with 100% certainty. We also know with very high certainty, that the issues are not widespread and that the election had integrity. In much the same way you and your bank can agree, with a high degree of certainty, how much 'money' is your digital bank account. We have process, records, oversight, validation, systems of integrity. Most things can be resolved to some reasonable factual basis. "The 2020 was not 'stolen'" - That's factual. "Ivermectin cures COVID". As far as I know, false. "COVID Vaccines are Dangerous". Well, that's an editorialisation, but the facts of the matter can definitely be established, and put into perspective. But finally this: "I don't want an authority dictating what is and isn't the "right" interpretation of history or current events," Who is trying to do that? What government is telling you what to think? We're talking about Twitter moderation. Twitter is a private company, that has some kind of relevance towards 'public commons', it means that you probably can't go on there saying things about medical technology that are completely false, and possibly not saying things about the status of state that have meaningful impact. And you can't threaten people. That's it. Nobody is telling you what to do or what to believe, but if you're trying to lie about election outcomes (and it's having a material impact on democratic legitimacy) - you're going to be off the platform. That's it. It's really not even that big of a deal.