2 ms·
Arguably they don't go both ways. The distinction is action vs inaction. If someone wants action from someone else, they need to argue the case for that action.
by mike_hearn 2y ago
Arguably they don't go both ways. The distinction is action vs inaction. If someone wants action from someone else, they need to argue the case for that action. Arguing for not doing something on the other hand is never necessary.
To see why, consider that the space of possible actions someone could not take is infinite. If there's an expectation that someone do a ton of research and work to argue for why they are not doing something, then the amount of work they would have to do is thus also infinite. This way lies madness, which is why in reality the default outcome that results from not acting is always taken as a given.
Sometimes this reality is obfuscated by activists. They find some group of people who are just doing their thing, and demand that those people do some extra things (usually some costly things). The arguments they make for this are weak, but when the targeted people say they'd rather not do those extra things the activists demand their targets argue for not doing what the activists want to whatever level of effort (or greater) they themselves made. This can be an effective bullying tactic but isn't legitimate: it's on those who want action to argue the case for it, not those who don't to argue against.
Digital platforms like social networks default to uncensored. If the operators do nothing, then by the way they are built content is allowed. It takes additional work to categorize posts and block certain kinds of content. So the default outcome is free speech. If someone wants someone else to do work to suppress that, then it's on them to prove that it's truly necessary and that the benefits outweigh the harms. But that doesn't cut both ways; it's not required for other people to take on the argument for free speech. That's the default outcome so it just wins by default if the other side can't prove their case to a sufficiently convincing level.
- ceejayoz 2y agoChoosing not to act is an action. The choice not to moderate certain content is a choice to permit certain content.
- mike_hearn 2y agoNot acting is, by definition, not an action.
- hollerith 2y agoSure, but not choosing is a choice.
- mike_hearn 2y agoThat's not really how language works. If not choosing to do something is a choice, then today we have all made an infinite number of choices. Nobody would ever express themselves that way. But even if you want to play word games, choices and actions aren't the same thing. Choosing to act is quantitively different from choosing not to act because it involves a different level of effort. It's wrong to assume that they are morally equal.
- hollerith 2y ago>then today we have all made an infinite number of choices The way I like to think about it is that once a choice has risen to the level of conscious awareness, it is an illusion that a person can just decline to choose.
- Timon3 2y agoThis seems to be presuming that there is some clear delineation between acting and not acting, but going through some daily occurrences it's difficult for me to find an objective line, mostly because there are choices one could make that allow one to call something inaction while it requires active action. Say for example I'm passing by a beggar on my way to work. Before deciding whether I give them money, I can first decide to ignore or not ignore them. From a basic human perspective I want to say hello and be friendly (and I choose to do this), but it does make me feel worse if I decline than if I had ignored them, exactly because it makes it feel like a choice. But if I ignore them, can I call passing by without giving them money less of a choice? I only moved my choice up one level in the tree of all possible decisions I can make. Or, moving it to the example of the drowning man: imagine you're holding out your arm to see how long you can do it, and see the life ring flying towards you. If you choose not to act, it'll hang on your arm, and the person will drown. Is it nevertheless inaction on your part?
- 2y ago