4 ms·
This makes no sense. Democracy is not going to die because people spread false information. Newspapers have had the monopoly on spreading whatever information
by imperio59 3y ago
This makes no sense.
Democracy is not going to die because people spread false information.
Newspapers have had the monopoly on spreading whatever information they deemed correct (whether it turned out to be or not) for decades and have now lost that and they are pissed.
This is why there is a rise in apparent outcry that all of a sudden anyone and everyone can spread their message broadly where only a handful of organizations could do it before.
There's is no crisis in democracy. As long as the same tools are free to be used to counter whatever fact you think is false then you are free to have an open debate and correct the record.
The government having the power to decide who can say what and what is "true" or "false"... That's the real risk of bringing death to democracy.
- jen20 3y ago> Democracy is not going to die because people spread false information. That is exactly what is going to happen. People do not have the tools to discern truth given plausible misinformation. > you are free to have an open debate and correct the record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law > The government having the power to decide who can say what and what is "true" or "false"... Indeed, that is a risk, but not the only risk.
- codemonkey-zeta 3y ago"Truth" is not something that can be discerned even in the absence of misinformation. It is a constantly evolving and negotiated equilibrium between the individual and their environment through the imperfect filter of perception. To put the reins of "fact-checking" in government control is simply a shortcut to tyranny, and not something that can stifle the death of democracy.
- t-3 3y agoIf people are incapable of determining true and false how are people supposed to determine true and false to remove misinformation?
- kelnos 3y ago> People do not have the tools to discern truth given plausible misinformation. Then give them the tools. > Indeed, that is a risk, but not the only risk. It's not really a risk, it's a fact. Governments routinely lie about plenty of things, and deny things that we later find out to be true. I would much rather have a bunch of people believe the wrong thing, than have true things labeled as misinformation, or worse, censored. The onus is on us, as citizens of a free society, to set the record straight, and constantly work to educate people. That's just the responsibility we have to accept. "Freedom isn't free" and all that.
- jutrewag 3y agoDemocracy will definitely die if you spread false information because everyone is making decisions based on falsehoods.
- uoaei 3y agoOne powerful way to insulate against this is to instill critical thinking skills: "don't believe everything you read or think" as a tenet of public life.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y ago[flagged]
- jaldhar 3y agoHow do you know they aren’t making decisions based on falsehood right now? You have to get information out there and only then can you evaluate whether it is true or false (or practical or inconvenient which is arguably more important in politics.). All democracy means is that we trust the citizens to evaluate truth for themselves. Not everyone believes this. India, for instance, has from its founding has taken the paternalistic position that the wise philosopher princes of New Delhi know better than you or me. I don’t agree but most people over there don’t seem to mind. (And I bet 90% of the ones who claim to be upset about it are only upset because it is the wrong set of philosopher princes.) This unfortunately is also democracy. So what are you going to do?
- citizen_friend 3y agoSo perhaps you are in favor of an elite group who can better discern the truth and guide the public with correct information?