3 ms·

I think there's a very clear line we can draw between different categories of smashing the printing press: - "banning books because they criticize the governme

by epgui 4y ago

I think there's a very clear line we can draw between different categories of smashing the printing press: - "banning books because they criticize the government" - "banning books because they have immoral content" And on the other hand: - "shutting down a viral video with advice dangerous to individuals, where protecting the public from direct physical harm is the goal" I don't know of any instances in History where we looked back at the latter in disapproval.

junofan 4y ago
What we look back in disapproval upon is empowering a group to do the silencing. I think because those who do the silencing usually end up silencing their own critics.
- epgui 4y ago
  I don't think this is always the case, and that's exactly my point. > "those who do the silencing usually end up silencing their own critics" I'm not even sure that this usually happens. It is certainly the case that when that happens, it is very memorable. But that's probably just a "selective attention bias" applied to History, that is, because the other cases are unremarkable.
  - junofan 4y ago
    I see your point, and still I don’t think it’s a good idea. We don’t give power like that to expertise for the same reason the commander-in-chief of the armed forces is a civilian.
    - epgui 4y ago
      We do give this power very narrowly and very successfully to many individuals in their official capacity, in different contexts. Judges, professors, administrative committees, employers in certain situations, heck, at the moment, any company with a platform can apply this power essentially arbitrarily and at will (which I'd argue is not great).
astrobe_ 4y ago
To protect is always the initial goal, and directly dangerous videos are the low hanging fruits. I'd say "viral videos" are too recent to be part of History yet, but shutting down a dangerous viral video is not very far from "banning immoral content", which is not very far itself from "banning hate speech". It's not that easy to draw a line because it is a continuum. Consensus and censorship is what many countries do: People vote for MPs, MPs vote laws against hate speech, pornography, etc. Or at least how it's supposed to work on the paper. The same way, we could decide for laws against media that propagates misinformation - and a judge would decide. We could do that. The tools are on the workbench, why we can't use them is another problem.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
If you take the ability to see the content away from me I trust you to evaluate the content exactly as much as you trust me to do so. How do you solve that conundrum?

by epgui 4y ago

junofan 4y ago

What we look back in disapproval upon is empowering a group to do the silencing. I think because those who do the silencing usually end up silencing their own critics.

epgui 4y ago
I don't think this is always the case, and that's exactly my point. > "those who do the silencing usually end up silencing their own critics" I'm not even sure that this usually happens. It is certainly the case that when that happens, it is very memorable. But that's probably just a "selective attention bias" applied to History, that is, because the other cases are unremarkable.
- junofan 4y ago
  I see your point, and still I don’t think it’s a good idea. We don’t give power like that to expertise for the same reason the commander-in-chief of the armed forces is a civilian.
  - epgui 4y ago
    We do give this power very narrowly and very successfully to many individuals in their official capacity, in different contexts. Judges, professors, administrative committees, employers in certain situations, heck, at the moment, any company with a platform can apply this power essentially arbitrarily and at will (which I'd argue is not great).

astrobe_ 4y ago

To protect is always the initial goal, and directly dangerous videos are the low hanging fruits. I'd say "viral videos" are too recent to be part of History yet, but shutting down a dangerous viral video is not very far from "banning immoral content", which is not very far itself from "banning hate speech". It's not that easy to draw a line because it is a continuum. Consensus and censorship is what many countries do: People vote for MPs, MPs vote laws against hate speech, pornography, etc. Or at least how it's supposed to work on the paper. The same way, we could decide for laws against media that propagates misinformation - and a judge would decide. We could do that. The tools are on the workbench, why we can't use them is another problem.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

If you take the ability to see the content away from me I trust you to evaluate the content exactly as much as you trust me to do so. How do you solve that conundrum?