3 ms·

This is repeating the mistakes of the past due to fear, a very common reaction. There is not undemocratic regime that came to power because people had too much

This is repeating the mistakes of the past due to fear, a very common reaction. There is not undemocratic regime that came to power because people had too much freedom. It did never happen anywhere and will never happen. Even with new things like the internet or punk music.

thomassmith65 2y ago
"Never"? Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler come to mind. It's easier to make a case for authoritarians always grabbing power by exploiting freedom. But the world is too complicated to reveal an iron-clad rule about this - a person can pick and choose historical events to back their argument. One looks at social media today and sees rampant mis- and disinformation, and then sees authoritarians rising to power, ostensibly due to this information environment. I would be very pleased to believe that uncensored social media makes the world more free; I am not sufficiently imaginative to see how.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  To demand censorship of free information is an inherently authoritarian policy. Perhaps even the most authoritarian demand of them all, or do you have other examples? To err on the side of freedom remains the correct choice. I am not saying that there are no negative social media platforms, I just say that there is no authority on the correctness of information and everyone is entitled to form their own opinion. And I am sure I won't like some of these opinions either. Hitler had a massive and extensive censorship machine. People were afraid to say the wrong things. That today some people believe freedom of expression is the cause of his rise is misinformation itself and a huge educational gap. But true, the dynamics are more complicated if you look into it more closely, but in the end resolve to the same conclusion.
  - thomassmith65 2y ago
    With apologies, I can't muster the enthusiasm to argue this issue again. For whatever reason I had this debate repeatedly in 2017. 'Paradox of Tolerance' and so on. Cheers
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      Popper certainly did not refer to speech here. Alright, we disagree then.

thomassmith65 2y ago

"Never"? Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler come to mind. It's easier to make a case for authoritarians always grabbing power by exploiting freedom. But the world is too complicated to reveal an iron-clad rule about this - a person can pick and choose historical events to back their argument. One looks at social media today and sees rampant mis- and disinformation, and then sees authoritarians rising to power, ostensibly due to this information environment. I would be very pleased to believe that uncensored social media makes the world more free; I am not sufficiently imaginative to see how.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
To demand censorship of free information is an inherently authoritarian policy. Perhaps even the most authoritarian demand of them all, or do you have other examples? To err on the side of freedom remains the correct choice. I am not saying that there are no negative social media platforms, I just say that there is no authority on the correctness of information and everyone is entitled to form their own opinion. And I am sure I won't like some of these opinions either. Hitler had a massive and extensive censorship machine. People were afraid to say the wrong things. That today some people believe freedom of expression is the cause of his rise is misinformation itself and a huge educational gap. But true, the dynamics are more complicated if you look into it more closely, but in the end resolve to the same conclusion.
- thomassmith65 2y ago
  With apologies, I can't muster the enthusiasm to argue this issue again. For whatever reason I had this debate repeatedly in 2017. 'Paradox of Tolerance' and so on. Cheers
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    Popper certainly did not refer to speech here. Alright, we disagree then.