3 ms·

> We can't have the hoi polloi just freely talking to each other willy nilly. They can freely talk all they want, but it might have been a mistake to give them

> We can't have the hoi polloi just freely talking to each other willy nilly. They can freely talk all they want, but it might have been a mistake to give them all frictionless broadcasting licenses. In those conditions, it seems like crowdsourced viral misinformation is quite competitive in the marketplace of ideas, perhaps even to the point of winning fair and square.

swayvil 5y ago
If we have a problem with "misinformation" (what a delicious figure of newspeak!) then provide us with the tools for managing that. We do not desire your kindly administration.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > If we have a problem with "misinformation" (what a delicious figure of newspeak!) then provide us with the tools for managing that. The point is maybe the hoi polloi can't manage that in this environment, regardless of tools. > We do not desire your kindly administration. Administration happens when people aren't solving problems on their own. So if you don't desire administration, solve the problem without it. Don't do stuff like declaring it a non-issue or hiding behind some principle, because that doesn't actually work. The former is obviously unserious, and the latter just weakens and eventually destroys the principle.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
helloworld11 5y ago
God forbid people should have the unlicensed freedom to misinform. Before, this privilege was only in the hands of the same major media giants that now rail about the supposed epidemic in misinformation of the type that they had no problem themselves creating however it suited their purposes or political alignments previously. That anyone who even basically believes in the importance of free speech and individual freedom should jump on the same bandwagon of paranoia about members of the public holding and promoting ideas that aren't always "correct" or literally correct and calling this a threat to freedom is absurd. This is a complete turning of cause and effect upon its head. No, the danger is explicitly much more so in the idea that some supposedly proper consensus of ideas should be enforced so that nobody does something silly, like voting for the "wrong" candidate, or viewing certain medical mandates in the "incorrect" way.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > God forbid people should have the unlicensed freedom to misinform. At least you're being honest about what that freedom can actually mean in practice, rather than telling some fairy tale about the marketplace of ideas or something. > Before, this privilege was only in the hands of the same major media giants that now rail about the supposed epidemic in misinformation of the type that they had no problem themselves creating however it suited their purposes or political alignments previously. Even if there's truth to that, it has a big, big advantage: it maintains some consensus around something. > No, the danger is explicitly much more so in the idea that some supposedly proper consensus of ideas should be enforced so that nobody does something silly, like voting for the "wrong" candidate, or viewing certain medical mandates in the "incorrect" way. That's an over-the-top straw man. I don't think anyone serious wants something like that, certainly not me.
  - helloworld11 5y ago
    >At least you're being honest about what that freedom can actually mean in practice, rather than telling some fairy tale about the marketplace of ideas or something. Yes, freedom of expression taken seriously does indeed mean that people, regular oridnary people in all their varieties then have the freedom to peacefully express ideas which might sometimes be abysmally stupid, ignorant or even malevolent. As long as they can't extend these ideas into coercive force against others, this should be fine. The fairytale idea is that by "fighting misinformation" large gatekeepers can somehow forcibly rid the world of bad ideas or make it a better place. These same gatekeepers of media are themselves some of the biggest misinformation culprits out there, and have been for a very long time.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > ...peacefully express ideas which might sometimes be abysmally stupid, ignorant or even malevolent. As long as they can't extend these ideas into coercive force against others, this should be fine. That's also a fairy tale. > The fairytale idea is that by "fighting misinformation" large gatekeepers can somehow forcibly rid the world of bad ideas or make it a better place. I don't think anyone thinks they can actually "forcibly rid the world of bad ideas," the best case is that they don't spread as quickly or as widely. > These same gatekeepers of media are themselves some of the biggest misinformation culprits out there, and have been for a very long time. And QAnon/Pizzagate, "Stop the Steal," and Ivermectin are the answer? The only truth there is a view into the id, otherwise it's only as correct as stopped clock. Enjoy the crack-up and decline, I guess?

swayvil 5y ago

If we have a problem with "misinformation" (what a delicious figure of newspeak!) then provide us with the tools for managing that. We do not desire your kindly administration.

tablespoon 5y ago
> If we have a problem with "misinformation" (what a delicious figure of newspeak!) then provide us with the tools for managing that. The point is maybe the hoi polloi can't manage that in this environment, regardless of tools. > We do not desire your kindly administration. Administration happens when people aren't solving problems on their own. So if you don't desire administration, solve the problem without it. Don't do stuff like declaring it a non-issue or hiding behind some principle, because that doesn't actually work. The former is obviously unserious, and the latter just weakens and eventually destroys the principle.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

helloworld11 5y ago

God forbid people should have the unlicensed freedom to misinform. Before, this privilege was only in the hands of the same major media giants that now rail about the supposed epidemic in misinformation of the type that they had no problem themselves creating however it suited their purposes or political alignments previously. That anyone who even basically believes in the importance of free speech and individual freedom should jump on the same bandwagon of paranoia about members of the public holding and promoting ideas that aren't always "correct" or literally correct and calling this a threat to freedom is absurd. This is a complete turning of cause and effect upon its head. No, the danger is explicitly much more so in the idea that some supposedly proper consensus of ideas should be enforced so that nobody does something silly, like voting for the "wrong" candidate, or viewing certain medical mandates in the "incorrect" way.

tablespoon 5y ago
> God forbid people should have the unlicensed freedom to misinform. At least you're being honest about what that freedom can actually mean in practice, rather than telling some fairy tale about the marketplace of ideas or something. > Before, this privilege was only in the hands of the same major media giants that now rail about the supposed epidemic in misinformation of the type that they had no problem themselves creating however it suited their purposes or political alignments previously. Even if there's truth to that, it has a big, big advantage: it maintains some consensus around something. > No, the danger is explicitly much more so in the idea that some supposedly proper consensus of ideas should be enforced so that nobody does something silly, like voting for the "wrong" candidate, or viewing certain medical mandates in the "incorrect" way. That's an over-the-top straw man. I don't think anyone serious wants something like that, certainly not me.
- helloworld11 5y ago
  >At least you're being honest about what that freedom can actually mean in practice, rather than telling some fairy tale about the marketplace of ideas or something. Yes, freedom of expression taken seriously does indeed mean that people, regular oridnary people in all their varieties then have the freedom to peacefully express ideas which might sometimes be abysmally stupid, ignorant or even malevolent. As long as they can't extend these ideas into coercive force against others, this should be fine. The fairytale idea is that by "fighting misinformation" large gatekeepers can somehow forcibly rid the world of bad ideas or make it a better place. These same gatekeepers of media are themselves some of the biggest misinformation culprits out there, and have been for a very long time.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > ...peacefully express ideas which might sometimes be abysmally stupid, ignorant or even malevolent. As long as they can't extend these ideas into coercive force against others, this should be fine. That's also a fairy tale. > The fairytale idea is that by "fighting misinformation" large gatekeepers can somehow forcibly rid the world of bad ideas or make it a better place. I don't think anyone thinks they can actually "forcibly rid the world of bad ideas," the best case is that they don't spread as quickly or as widely. > These same gatekeepers of media are themselves some of the biggest misinformation culprits out there, and have been for a very long time. And QAnon/Pizzagate, "Stop the Steal," and Ivermectin are the answer? The only truth there is a view into the id, otherwise it's only as correct as stopped clock. Enjoy the crack-up and decline, I guess?