2 ms·

I don't think the limit is as clear as you seem to think, especially in the age of modern social media and their effect on discourse - filter bubbles, using out

I don't think the limit is as clear as you seem to think, especially in the age of modern social media and their effect on discourse - filter bubbles, using outrage for engagement, amplification of otherwise-marginal beliefs, etc. Is an organized disinformation campaign (even if not state sponsored) "willingness to engage"? It rather seems like an attempt to prevent or disrupt rational argument, even though it doesn't involve physical violence. The line for "engaging in rational discourse" needs to be as clear as the one for when suppression might be justified, because they're inextricably linked. Popper's ideas are very useful as a framing device, but sorely need update and elaboration to become applicable in the real modern world.

dleslie 4y ago
An organized disinformation campaign is what I would consider to be irrational argument and deserving of regulation; we already accept limits on deceptive and harmful expression by way of regulation and criminal legislation. Ie, one can't simply sell strychnine and claim it's a panacea, or defraud investors with cooked financials. But that's different from a zeitgeist of individuals who believe in falsehoods and argue for what they believe to be true; any single one of which may be acting rationally and arguing in good faith.