6 ms·

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 abo

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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?
    - helloworld11 4y ago
      And sincerely, how do you propose that they be stopped from spreading as quickly based on your criteria or correct spread? Honestly curious. Who should decide what ideas can be labeled bad and what ideas tolerable or good? Also, no, it's not a fairytale. Words and expressions of ideas are one thing, coercion and physical violence are another. It's very possible to generally legally stop people from the latter while respecting their right to the former. It's done all the time if imperfectly and the much more obvious danger for bad social traits is a system in which ideas are repressed coercively under the excuse that expressing bad ideas might somehow limit individual freedom. >And QAnon/Pizzagate, "Stop the Steal," and Ivermectin are the answer? What an absurd way to twist narrative. These ideas obviously aren't the answer. A system that lets people compete against their expression with their own freely expressed better founded ideas is the answer. Media-induced and politically convenient hysteria aside, it has worked well for a long time in some of the freest societies in human history, right to today. The repressions on supposedly socially damaging ideas we had before that were far more pernicious to thinking and action than any number of QAnon followers or pizzagate believers today. Where do you see the decline you mention? And decline from what? Compared to what previous superior state of social expression rules? If you want gatekeepers against these ideas then who? The government, which regularly takes mendacity to extremes no private organization can match for level of harm? Or possibly major media outlets should be responsible for "slowing misinformation spread"? You know, media organizations like those that have happily sold multiple major policy lies during decades of their existence and which have cheered on wars, military campaigns and vested narratives time and time again.

tablespoon 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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?
  - helloworld11 4y ago
    And sincerely, how do you propose that they be stopped from spreading as quickly based on your criteria or correct spread? Honestly curious. Who should decide what ideas can be labeled bad and what ideas tolerable or good? Also, no, it's not a fairytale. Words and expressions of ideas are one thing, coercion and physical violence are another. It's very possible to generally legally stop people from the latter while respecting their right to the former. It's done all the time if imperfectly and the much more obvious danger for bad social traits is a system in which ideas are repressed coercively under the excuse that expressing bad ideas might somehow limit individual freedom. >And QAnon/Pizzagate, "Stop the Steal," and Ivermectin are the answer? What an absurd way to twist narrative. These ideas obviously aren't the answer. A system that lets people compete against their expression with their own freely expressed better founded ideas is the answer. Media-induced and politically convenient hysteria aside, it has worked well for a long time in some of the freest societies in human history, right to today. The repressions on supposedly socially damaging ideas we had before that were far more pernicious to thinking and action than any number of QAnon followers or pizzagate believers today. Where do you see the decline you mention? And decline from what? Compared to what previous superior state of social expression rules? If you want gatekeepers against these ideas then who? The government, which regularly takes mendacity to extremes no private organization can match for level of harm? Or possibly major media outlets should be responsible for "slowing misinformation spread"? You know, media organizations like those that have happily sold multiple major policy lies during decades of their existence and which have cheered on wars, military campaigns and vested narratives time and time again.