3 ms·

>I'd love to hear your better idea to deal with disinformation. There is no silver bullet solution since we're not in an utopia. On the one hand all private m

>I'd love to hear your better idea to deal with disinformation. There is no silver bullet solution since we're not in an utopia. On the one hand all private media is controlled by biased oligarchs each with their own interests. On the other hand, governments in power want to control the narrative towards their own interests hence why in many EU countries we have state media. This is how it's always been and how it's always gonna be, a constant tug of war between interest groups, but I don't want any one side to have complete control of the media as that would be even worse. >The free marketplace of ideas has obviously not worked. Why do you think it hasn't worked? To me it seems like it's working, that's why those in power fear it and want to control it all for themselves. My parents lived under communism. The speech control the EU is pushing resembles very well what communism had but with a better PR spin on it. Communism got defeated in part by total freedom of speech winning in the free market place of ideas versus government controlled speech. The Arab Spring revolutions could not have happened without the free media circulating on the internet. So to see the EU trying to lock down on free speech the same way totalitarian regime did, is incredibly suspicious to me like their afraid of their own people revolting against them. I don't want unelected elites in Brussels deciding for me what content and opinions I should be allowed to view. If you want to win in the free marketplace of ideas, then come up with arguments for the people on why you consider each piece of information to be misinformation and debate it in public, not just ban it outright.

bgarbiak 2y ago
I remember the communism. Boy, you have no idea. And, frankly, your comparisons between EU clampdown on disinformation and hate speech (however effective or justified it is) to communism propaganda and to persecutions against its opponents - it is pretty offensive.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  >Boy, you have no idea. Why? What did I miss? >your comparisons between EU clampdown on disinformation and hate speech (however effective or justified it is) to communism propaganda and to persecutions against its opponents - it is pretty offensive That's how boiling the frog works. Where do you think you'll end up if you give the government authority to decide what information is right or wrong for you to have access to? What happens when Ursula v.d Leyen decides that her scandal involving the deleted email is "disinformation" and has a friendly judge call for it to be scrubbed from media and search engines? You can't and should never blindly trust governments with them having your well being at heart. The main goal of a government is to stay in power, by any mean necessary in order to help those who finance their careers and campaigns. If you can't see the slope between this speech police path and becoming an USSR-Light minus the gulags and executions, then maybe you're the offensive one.
  - tpm 2y ago
    > That's how boiling the frog works. that's also how the slippery slope fallacy works
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      Hitler seizing power and the Nazis invading Poland was also a fallacy. Until it wasn't. The NSA spying on everyone was also a fallacy. Until it wasn't. Go back in time and find other examples. Any extreme powers you give the government to "keep you safe", they will eventually be abused, first against foreigners, political dissidents and whistleblowers, then against you. History doesn't necessarily repat itself, but it definitely rhymes.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      Technically, "slippery slope" isn't a fallacy. It's just a name for the idea that one thing leads inevitably to another. It's not fallacious to extrapolate from past experience, even if that extrapolation turns out to be wrong.
      - tpm 2y ago
        I wrote "slippery slope fallacy", not just "slippery slope", for a reason.
        mike_hearn 2y ago
        Arguing A->B is only a fallacy if no argument for the sequence is provided. A plausible argument was provided here based on prior experience of other governments. There's no fallacy if you just disagree on the probability.
        tpm 2y ago
        No argument (not plausible, not probable, none) for the sequence was provided. Communist revolution always precedes communist control of speech.
immibis 2y ago
The free marketplace idea obviously has not worked to combat disinformation, because we're trying the radical free marketplace idea and so many people are believing so much disinformation that they're threatening to destroy every western country. One of them is already destroying itself, not just threatening to.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  >many people are believing so much disinformation That is a symptom, not a cause. That means education system is bad and has failed people, OR, that people are so desperate with their living standards that they're not disinformed but they just want to take revenge on the establishment that has failed them by voting extremes. Either way, those are symptoms, not the cause so I don't believe government enforced censorship is the solution because that's exactly what totalitarian regimes did when people were unhappy. The solution is for the establishment to accept they have failed the people and start to do good for the people or step down. This means the democratic system IS working as intended, as if you were to censor speech and take away peoples' only legal way of protesting (voting), then their next alternatives is violence and uprising.
  - tpm 2y ago
    > That means education system is bad and has failed people What if the education system can't fix this? Not just the current one - any education system. > that people are so desperate with their living standards What if people's propensity to believe utter bullshit is independent of their financial situation? > Either way, those are symptoms, not the cause What if the tendency to believe bullshit is the cause? You have failed to prove it isn't, so your proposed solutions probably won't work and indeed may make matters much worse.
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      >What if the education system can't fix this? If your nation's education is so bad that 51% of the population buys into disinformation with no way of convincing them otherwise, then you'll have to accept you're doomed as a country and deserve that fate. Might as well give up on democracy and anoint an emperor or king to rule over you, because there's no point in cosplaying as a democracy if you're not planning to respect the will of the majority at the elections. >Not just the current one - any education system. Switzerland and nordic countries like Denmark seem to be quite well educated, highly transparent, low corruption and a decent democracy. So it is possible. >What if people's propensity to believe utter bullshit is independent of their financial situation? People's political biases are ALWAYS tied to their wealth, education and social class. Just compare a map with wealth/income distribution with a map with blue/red voters. >What if the tendency to believe bullshit is the cause? Look in the mirror.

bgarbiak 2y ago

I remember the communism. Boy, you have no idea. And, frankly, your comparisons between EU clampdown on disinformation and hate speech (however effective or justified it is) to communism propaganda and to persecutions against its opponents - it is pretty offensive.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
>Boy, you have no idea. Why? What did I miss? >your comparisons between EU clampdown on disinformation and hate speech (however effective or justified it is) to communism propaganda and to persecutions against its opponents - it is pretty offensive That's how boiling the frog works. Where do you think you'll end up if you give the government authority to decide what information is right or wrong for you to have access to? What happens when Ursula v.d Leyen decides that her scandal involving the deleted email is "disinformation" and has a friendly judge call for it to be scrubbed from media and search engines? You can't and should never blindly trust governments with them having your well being at heart. The main goal of a government is to stay in power, by any mean necessary in order to help those who finance their careers and campaigns. If you can't see the slope between this speech police path and becoming an USSR-Light minus the gulags and executions, then maybe you're the offensive one.
- tpm 2y ago
  > That's how boiling the frog works. that's also how the slippery slope fallacy works
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    Hitler seizing power and the Nazis invading Poland was also a fallacy. Until it wasn't. The NSA spying on everyone was also a fallacy. Until it wasn't. Go back in time and find other examples. Any extreme powers you give the government to "keep you safe", they will eventually be abused, first against foreigners, political dissidents and whistleblowers, then against you. History doesn't necessarily repat itself, but it definitely rhymes.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Technically, "slippery slope" isn't a fallacy. It's just a name for the idea that one thing leads inevitably to another. It's not fallacious to extrapolate from past experience, even if that extrapolation turns out to be wrong.
    - tpm 2y ago
      I wrote "slippery slope fallacy", not just "slippery slope", for a reason.
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        Arguing A->B is only a fallacy if no argument for the sequence is provided. A plausible argument was provided here based on prior experience of other governments. There's no fallacy if you just disagree on the probability.
        tpm 2y ago
        No argument (not plausible, not probable, none) for the sequence was provided. Communist revolution always precedes communist control of speech.

immibis 2y ago

The free marketplace idea obviously has not worked to combat disinformation, because we're trying the radical free marketplace idea and so many people are believing so much disinformation that they're threatening to destroy every western country. One of them is already destroying itself, not just threatening to.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
>many people are believing so much disinformation That is a symptom, not a cause. That means education system is bad and has failed people, OR, that people are so desperate with their living standards that they're not disinformed but they just want to take revenge on the establishment that has failed them by voting extremes. Either way, those are symptoms, not the cause so I don't believe government enforced censorship is the solution because that's exactly what totalitarian regimes did when people were unhappy. The solution is for the establishment to accept they have failed the people and start to do good for the people or step down. This means the democratic system IS working as intended, as if you were to censor speech and take away peoples' only legal way of protesting (voting), then their next alternatives is violence and uprising.
- tpm 2y ago
  > That means education system is bad and has failed people What if the education system can't fix this? Not just the current one - any education system. > that people are so desperate with their living standards What if people's propensity to believe utter bullshit is independent of their financial situation? > Either way, those are symptoms, not the cause What if the tendency to believe bullshit is the cause? You have failed to prove it isn't, so your proposed solutions probably won't work and indeed may make matters much worse.
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    >What if the education system can't fix this? If your nation's education is so bad that 51% of the population buys into disinformation with no way of convincing them otherwise, then you'll have to accept you're doomed as a country and deserve that fate. Might as well give up on democracy and anoint an emperor or king to rule over you, because there's no point in cosplaying as a democracy if you're not planning to respect the will of the majority at the elections. >Not just the current one - any education system. Switzerland and nordic countries like Denmark seem to be quite well educated, highly transparent, low corruption and a decent democracy. So it is possible. >What if people's propensity to believe utter bullshit is independent of their financial situation? People's political biases are ALWAYS tied to their wealth, education and social class. Just compare a map with wealth/income distribution with a map with blue/red voters. >What if the tendency to believe bullshit is the cause? Look in the mirror.