3 ms·
On the other hand, judging from the past 5-6 years, freely giving out voice amplifiers (Facebook and targeted ads, anyone?) clearly didn't turn out well either,
by yongjik 4y ago
On the other hand, judging from the past 5-6 years, freely giving out voice amplifiers (Facebook and targeted ads, anyone?) clearly didn't turn out well either, so the optimum is probably somewhere in the middle.
- junofan 4y agoI think a workable solution can be found. I don’t know if that’s necessarily a middle ground between amplification and censorship; feels like that could be the “middle ground” fallacy. We’ve solved problems like this in the past.
- epgui 4y agoThe middle ground fallacy does not apply here. It only applies when one of the two things being considered is incorrect.
- junofan 4y agoYou already said amplification was incorrect. I think you’re not willing to budge on censoring things you know to be incorrect and dangerous, so ironically we won’t be able to find middle ground. That’s okay.
- epgui 4y agoNo, "amplification" is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. What I said is that there should be limits to amplification. Ruling out an extreme does not rule out the middle ground. The way this works is that there are some questions that have clear answers. For example, anthropogenic climate change (or to be more precise, the idea that "Most of the warming of Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century has been caused by human activities."). The middle ground fallacy is what you call it when you put up two people on TV, one who is an expert on climate change, and another who is just a contrarian, and where you don't frame it exactly as it is: one is wrong and the other is right. That's not the same thing as this conversation we're having.
- yongjik 4y agoI don't think we've solved these problems in the past. We simply didn't have such problems at the scale we have now.