3 ms·

I understand. But they are naive, misguided, conflicted, and stuffed with money. There is no evidence that giving platforms to hucksters, Nazis, racists, or con

I understand. But they are naive, misguided, conflicted, and stuffed with money. There is no evidence that giving platforms to hucksters, Nazis, racists, or conspiracy theorists moves any conversation forward in any helpful manner. But there's lots of evidence that giving lies more airtime gives those lies more teeth and those teeth more flesh to chew on. These idiots are eroding the populace's ability to reject malicious actors right out. Which is what we should be doing. There is no need to rehash the fact that hating Jews is a bad thing. Lex should apologize and take a course in media literacy.

actinium226 4y ago
I take your point that presenting a conspiracy theory as a form of "both sides" debate can have the effect of legitimizing something that has no claim to legitimacy, and this is essentially how misinformation spreads. There are some that want to ban the spread of misinformation. There's value to this. Some misinformation is harmful, like what we've seen about vaccines. People have died from COVID needlessly as a result of vaccine scare-mongering, and this is terrible! If there are people out there who are knowingly spreading misinformation they should be prosecuted under some sort of "you-cant-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre" statute. IN ADDITION to that, there needs to be good faith discussion of the issues. Sticking to the vaccine example, people have legitimate questions. What's a vaccine? How does it work? How is it tested for safety? Are there any side effects? What's mRNA? People like Fridman and Huberman attempt to have these discussions, and get into details, and explore the alternative arguments and reasons for supporting and rejecting them. Rogan I'm not sure about, I don't watch him much and what I've seen looks more like casual "shooting the shit" than a directed exploration of an issue, but as far as I can tell he seems to be acting in good faith and isn't one of those people covered by the second paragraph above. The point I'm making is that when people are acting in bad faith and spreading misinformation, we should absolutely take action and, in your words, make it easier for the populace to reject a malicious actor outright, but the people we're talking about generally acting in good faith.
- ryanklee 4y ago
  You can act in good faith and contribute to negative outcomes. This is what I mean when I say that Lex F is naive. He thinks he's doing a good thing and he's doing it in a big way, but it's a bad thing and it has big, bad consequences. The would would be a better place without his interviews.

actinium226 4y ago

I take your point that presenting a conspiracy theory as a form of "both sides" debate can have the effect of legitimizing something that has no claim to legitimacy, and this is essentially how misinformation spreads. There are some that want to ban the spread of misinformation. There's value to this. Some misinformation is harmful, like what we've seen about vaccines. People have died from COVID needlessly as a result of vaccine scare-mongering, and this is terrible! If there are people out there who are knowingly spreading misinformation they should be prosecuted under some sort of "you-cant-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre" statute. IN ADDITION to that, there needs to be good faith discussion of the issues. Sticking to the vaccine example, people have legitimate questions. What's a vaccine? How does it work? How is it tested for safety? Are there any side effects? What's mRNA? People like Fridman and Huberman attempt to have these discussions, and get into details, and explore the alternative arguments and reasons for supporting and rejecting them. Rogan I'm not sure about, I don't watch him much and what I've seen looks more like casual "shooting the shit" than a directed exploration of an issue, but as far as I can tell he seems to be acting in good faith and isn't one of those people covered by the second paragraph above. The point I'm making is that when people are acting in bad faith and spreading misinformation, we should absolutely take action and, in your words, make it easier for the populace to reject a malicious actor outright, but the people we're talking about generally acting in good faith.

ryanklee 4y ago
You can act in good faith and contribute to negative outcomes. This is what I mean when I say that Lex F is naive. He thinks he's doing a good thing and he's doing it in a big way, but it's a bad thing and it has big, bad consequences. The would would be a better place without his interviews.