3 ms·
> A content free-for-all may be the best we can hope for. Only if we sacrifice innocence from even the few corners it persists in. Nor would content anarchism
by nyokodo 3y ago
> A content free-for-all may be the best we can hope for.
Only if we sacrifice innocence from even the few corners it persists in. Nor would content anarchism last if we achieved it as human nature appears to not be anarchic so culture will tend to reject it and there will always be power inequalities that will all result in censorship creeping back in. The best we can hope for is a limited amount of censorship that makes it as easy as possible to be good and happy. That raises a lot of questions about what is reasonable and what is good, but that is where the battleground will be.
- throwawa14223 3y agoThe last few years seem to have proven that humanity cannot be trusted to use censorship to enable what is good. I don't want to live under someone else's moral dictatorship and I highly doubt anyone else wants to live under mine. Radical free speech seems the only option.
- krapp 3y agoBut "radical free speech" is your moral dictatorship and, in insisting that it is the only viable option, you are insisting everyone else should live under it.
- throwawa14223 3y agoRadical free speech is not my moral dictatorship. I want to ban lots of vile groups from speaking. It is a truce.
- Geisterde 3y agoPower inequalities will creep in? Is there a greater power inequality than you and the government? You want the intellectual battleground to be around what gets censored? How does that get decided? If the majority of people want to censor the plight of an oppressed group because its convenient, will that pass? You are willingly throwing away the idea of free information exchange because you are scared of, censorship?