4 ms·

Do you feel better off in a jurisdiction where, for example, anti-vaxxing is promoted?

by libertine 2y ago

jamiecurle 2y ago
Yes.
- mavhc 2y ago
  Are you more likely to die because the people around you aren't vaccinated, or because you can't access a pro suicide website?
- libertine 2y ago
  Why do you feel like allowing deliberate misinformation of people is a better standard for the jurisdiction in which you want to live?
  - bilvar 2y ago
    Who determines what is misinformation? And after we have established this, who determines whether it was deliberate?
    - libertine 2y ago
      > Who determines what is misinformation? Who determines laws? > And after we have established this, who determines whether it was deliberate? Democracies have institutions with the tools and power to investigate. It's like a regulator is a new concept.
      - bilvar 2y ago
        You want to give the power to the people that make the laws to also decree what is true or not? This is going to turn out well. I don’t think that having institutions that can legislate the truth is compatible with free and just societies. Political power and democratic majorities do not decide the truth. if you think otherwise I don’t believe there is common ground to be found.
        libertine 2y ago
        So why is the alternative, which is having multi-billionaires having all that power to decree what is true/acceptable better?
        bilvar 2y ago
        They don't, no billionaire can put you in jail for believing/saying something different that they want you to believe. And let me get this straight, you think that having an institution that legislates the truth is protection against billionaires usurping that power? Who has the money to lobby those institutions to do their bidding? Me and you or the billionaire?
        libertine 2y ago
        > They don't, no billionaire can put you in jail for believing/saying something different that they want you to believe. They can make your living unsustainable, some can de-platform you, and let's not kid ourselves they can make your life miserable with this new billionaire cult following. We know they can get away from a lot of things, and they can stay out of jail. We're yet to see what will happen when they capture the government. I don't get this worshipping of tech billionaires and the Market. Is it under the illusion that the market will serve us, and some will be fortunate to get the scraps of value? > And let me get this straight, you think that having an institution that legislates the truth is protection against billionaires usurping that power? Who has the money to lobby those institutions to do their bidding? Me and you or the billionaire? For the US, that boat has already sailed. You already have tech billionaires who legislate the truth—look at Twitter, and what happened once Elon set Twitter to push MAGA propaganda[0]—that became the truth. He was successful at it and now is seeking to influence other elections[1]. Hopefully, the EU will set the example. [0]https://cybernews.com/news/x-algorithm-changed-musk-boost-right-wing/ https://cybernews.com/news/x-algorithm-changed-musk-boost-ri... [1]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/19/ban-elon-musk-making-78m-donation-reform-ippr/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/19/ban-elon-mus...
pjfin123 2y ago
I wouldn't trust the science on something I'm injecting into my body if it was illegal for people to disagree about it.
- libertine 2y ago
  The point isn't about people disagreeing, but promoting that disagreement with the intent to misinform others. People are free to disagree as long as they don't put others and their children at risk - if that's the case it should be considered illegal. I'm all for people who promote misinformation to be allowed to present their peer-reviewed research in a special court.
  - pjfin123 2y ago
    How would this special court work? Can anyone including amateur scientists access it freely? Are the arguments public? What's nice about free speech is it's a simple rule, "any citizen can speak about and promote any opinion they have." The fact that it's clear makes it difficult for the government to shut down opposition political speech. I also think scientific inquiry should be an open process.
    - libertine 2y ago
      Similar to how you regulate any mass media channels (TV, Radio, etc). You have a regulator in place, for example, anyone with +10.000 followers, or who gets +10.000 views should be considered a person of influence and be liable for their claims. I agree with you, I think everything should be made public, including influencers' income statements. > What's nice about free speech is it's a simple rule, "any citizen can speak about and promote any opinion they have." Thankfully there are laws in place, and the point is more laws should be in place to make people liable for disinformation.
nxm 2y ago
Yes, I'd rather be where opposing views are allowed. Remember when Covid vax was promoted as it'd prevent you from spreading the disease, or that they were "safe" (no heart related side effects). People don't win when government officials are guardians of "the truth".

Do you feel better off in a jurisdiction where, for example, anti-vaxxing is promoted?

jamiecurle 2y ago

Yes.

mavhc 2y ago
Are you more likely to die because the people around you aren't vaccinated, or because you can't access a pro suicide website?
libertine 2y ago
Why do you feel like allowing deliberate misinformation of people is a better standard for the jurisdiction in which you want to live?
- bilvar 2y ago
  Who determines what is misinformation? And after we have established this, who determines whether it was deliberate?
  - libertine 2y ago
    > Who determines what is misinformation? Who determines laws? > And after we have established this, who determines whether it was deliberate? Democracies have institutions with the tools and power to investigate. It's like a regulator is a new concept.
    - bilvar 2y ago
      You want to give the power to the people that make the laws to also decree what is true or not? This is going to turn out well. I don’t think that having institutions that can legislate the truth is compatible with free and just societies. Political power and democratic majorities do not decide the truth. if you think otherwise I don’t believe there is common ground to be found.
      - libertine 2y ago
        So why is the alternative, which is having multi-billionaires having all that power to decree what is true/acceptable better?
        bilvar 2y ago
        They don't, no billionaire can put you in jail for believing/saying something different that they want you to believe. And let me get this straight, you think that having an institution that legislates the truth is protection against billionaires usurping that power? Who has the money to lobby those institutions to do their bidding? Me and you or the billionaire?
        libertine 2y ago
        > They don't, no billionaire can put you in jail for believing/saying something different that they want you to believe. They can make your living unsustainable, some can de-platform you, and let's not kid ourselves they can make your life miserable with this new billionaire cult following. We know they can get away from a lot of things, and they can stay out of jail. We're yet to see what will happen when they capture the government. I don't get this worshipping of tech billionaires and the Market. Is it under the illusion that the market will serve us, and some will be fortunate to get the scraps of value? > And let me get this straight, you think that having an institution that legislates the truth is protection against billionaires usurping that power? Who has the money to lobby those institutions to do their bidding? Me and you or the billionaire? For the US, that boat has already sailed. You already have tech billionaires who legislate the truth—look at Twitter, and what happened once Elon set Twitter to push MAGA propaganda[0]—that became the truth. He was successful at it and now is seeking to influence other elections[1]. Hopefully, the EU will set the example. [0]https://cybernews.com/news/x-algorithm-changed-musk-boost-right-wing/ https://cybernews.com/news/x-algorithm-changed-musk-boost-ri... [1]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/19/ban-elon-musk-making-78m-donation-reform-ippr/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/19/ban-elon-mus...

pjfin123 2y ago

I wouldn't trust the science on something I'm injecting into my body if it was illegal for people to disagree about it.

libertine 2y ago
The point isn't about people disagreeing, but promoting that disagreement with the intent to misinform others. People are free to disagree as long as they don't put others and their children at risk - if that's the case it should be considered illegal. I'm all for people who promote misinformation to be allowed to present their peer-reviewed research in a special court.
- pjfin123 2y ago
  How would this special court work? Can anyone including amateur scientists access it freely? Are the arguments public? What's nice about free speech is it's a simple rule, "any citizen can speak about and promote any opinion they have." The fact that it's clear makes it difficult for the government to shut down opposition political speech. I also think scientific inquiry should be an open process.
  - libertine 2y ago
    Similar to how you regulate any mass media channels (TV, Radio, etc). You have a regulator in place, for example, anyone with +10.000 followers, or who gets +10.000 views should be considered a person of influence and be liable for their claims. I agree with you, I think everything should be made public, including influencers' income statements. > What's nice about free speech is it's a simple rule, "any citizen can speak about and promote any opinion they have." Thankfully there are laws in place, and the point is more laws should be in place to make people liable for disinformation.

nxm 2y ago

Yes, I'd rather be where opposing views are allowed. Remember when Covid vax was promoted as it'd prevent you from spreading the disease, or that they were "safe" (no heart related side effects). People don't win when government officials are guardians of "the truth".