3 ms·

I think absolute free speech and direct democracy are very different. DD results in disastrous consequences if the public is not informed and media is owned by

I think absolute free speech and direct democracy are very different. DD results in disastrous consequences if the public is not informed and media is owned by corporations or worse, by the state. If US had DD, it would be untenable. It is a direct coupling between laws and zeitgeist of the people. Representative democracy is sort of a "buffer" or acts as a damping factor. Otherwise, US would become an instant socialist/communist/facist/leninist nation based on who controls the media sphere. Free speech ensures we can talk about pros/cons of lockdowns. It ensures there is space to discuss COVID origins. It ensures people in power are held accountable. It ensures people are able to challenge the status quo and debate. While there is a clear line IMO when it comes to speech – that line has been moved quite a bit far in CCP-like censorship by the kinds of Google/Apple.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> DD results in disastrous consequences if the public is not informed and media is owned by corporations or worse, by the state The problem is more fundamental in a way that is relevant. Direct democracy's failings predate the concept of the corporation. (The concepts of democracy and statehood could be argued to be contemporaneous.) Independent of the media environment, the crowd autocorrelates and devolves into self-extinguishing mob rule. The issue is that autocorrelation. People aligning for the sake of alignment and then torching perceived opponents. That last part rapidly degrades into tests of ideological purity at which point we're back to mob rule. Modern social media, including Twitter, thrives at facilitating this process (alignment, amplification, zealotry). That's what we're trying to get away from. Moderation is one solution. It appears to have gone too far.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  > Independent of the media environment, the crowd autocorrelates and devolves into self-extinguishing mob rule. True, but that was before we networked billions of people together with this thing called the Internet. > The issue is that autocorrelation. People aligning for the sake of alignment and then torching perceived opponents. That last part rapidly degrades into tests of ideological purity at which point we're back to mob rule. Modern social media, including Twitter, thrives at facilitating this process (alignment, amplification, zealotry). I agree, this is why privatization of Twitter is good. Less quarterly YoY growth MAU/DAU metrics, and more focus on improving society and moderation. Rage selling has gone too far, one of the negatives of rampant uncontrolled capitalism.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > quarterly YoY growth MAU/DAU metrics, and more focus on improving society and moderation Leverage increases focus on financial metrics. Twitter is being taken private by way of an LBO. Maybe focussing less on Silicon Valley metrics in favor of Wall Street ones will make Twitter a better company? (That would be ironic.)
weakfish 5y ago
I think it’s a bit odd to say we’d be instantly communist. Those who control the media are _exceptionally_ interested in the status quo and making profit - they do so by generating outrage on both sides, giving the appearance of holding leftist beliefs while not actually being interested. See: CNN’s treatment of Bernie sanders vs Hillary clinton

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> DD results in disastrous consequences if the public is not informed and media is owned by corporations or worse, by the state The problem is more fundamental in a way that is relevant. Direct democracy's failings predate the concept of the corporation. (The concepts of democracy and statehood could be argued to be contemporaneous.) Independent of the media environment, the crowd autocorrelates and devolves into self-extinguishing mob rule. The issue is that autocorrelation. People aligning for the sake of alignment and then torching perceived opponents. That last part rapidly degrades into tests of ideological purity at which point we're back to mob rule. Modern social media, including Twitter, thrives at facilitating this process (alignment, amplification, zealotry). That's what we're trying to get away from. Moderation is one solution. It appears to have gone too far.

systemvoltage 5y ago
> Independent of the media environment, the crowd autocorrelates and devolves into self-extinguishing mob rule. True, but that was before we networked billions of people together with this thing called the Internet. > The issue is that autocorrelation. People aligning for the sake of alignment and then torching perceived opponents. That last part rapidly degrades into tests of ideological purity at which point we're back to mob rule. Modern social media, including Twitter, thrives at facilitating this process (alignment, amplification, zealotry). I agree, this is why privatization of Twitter is good. Less quarterly YoY growth MAU/DAU metrics, and more focus on improving society and moderation. Rage selling has gone too far, one of the negatives of rampant uncontrolled capitalism.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > quarterly YoY growth MAU/DAU metrics, and more focus on improving society and moderation Leverage increases focus on financial metrics. Twitter is being taken private by way of an LBO. Maybe focussing less on Silicon Valley metrics in favor of Wall Street ones will make Twitter a better company? (That would be ironic.)

weakfish 5y ago

I think it’s a bit odd to say we’d be instantly communist. Those who control the media are _exceptionally_ interested in the status quo and making profit - they do so by generating outrage on both sides, giving the appearance of holding leftist beliefs while not actually being interested. See: CNN’s treatment of Bernie sanders vs Hillary clinton