3 ms·

Sure. Though which ones will most people use? Do most people use that small obscure vaccine denying or authoring model, is that right to have them use the main

by mannanj 6mo ago

Sure. Though which ones will most people use? Do most people use that small obscure vaccine denying or authoring model, is that right to have them use the main societal belief affirming model when it could be wrong?

gausswho 6mo ago
I think it's right to let the popular fora be wrong, yes. That's the crux isn't it. This is a world where people can say vile or deceitful things, even be paid to do so (ahem... adtech). And I don't think there's any amount of guardrails we can govern in that will make a difference. I take solace that knowledge is curated by millions of stewards, and great ideas come from people who ignore the deception and come up with their own narratives. I root for both of these camps, knowing that they're up against increasingly well-funded barons and their despots.
- mannanj 6mo ago
  Ah, well said. I see that. What makes you believe there's no guardrails we can govern in? And is it that you believe they need to be governed in. And regardless of if we had to govern them in, what do you think such guard rails would be anyways? Or do you think no guardrails can ever be created to solve this problem of vileness and deceit.
  - gausswho 6mo ago
    I abused my preposition there (in), sorry for the confusion. I meant in in the sense of bringing some new policy in to play to address the challenges of misinformation. There are tools of government policy that can shape speech, but the good ones I can think of are indirect and have long delay. Subsidizing higher education is one way. Raising new humans to enjoy and participate in critical thinking, at a scale high enough to broadly shape culture to engage in a reasoned and empirical stance about the world, benefiting even those who didn't participate in higher education. That to me is the gold standard. The folks actually making vaccines and discussing their efficacy. I'd expect them to be a product of this government investment. There's a reason some politicians take great pains to kneecap such funding. What I think is futile and silly is relying on modern nation states, with all their foibles, to effectively legislate and punish/reward what's incorrect/ethical among the myriad voices, in the myriad forms of communication that's going on in the oppressive now. I'd generally be shameless, hapless, corrupt. Counterproductive. The failures pile up, folks dream up the next option, which usually is on the path heavier state intrusion into our lives. I'd gladly discuss counterexamples to my angle here, if you'd like to provide them.

by mannanj 6mo ago

gausswho 6mo ago

I think it's right to let the popular fora be wrong, yes. That's the crux isn't it. This is a world where people can say vile or deceitful things, even be paid to do so (ahem... adtech). And I don't think there's any amount of guardrails we can govern in that will make a difference. I take solace that knowledge is curated by millions of stewards, and great ideas come from people who ignore the deception and come up with their own narratives. I root for both of these camps, knowing that they're up against increasingly well-funded barons and their despots.

mannanj 6mo ago
Ah, well said. I see that. What makes you believe there's no guardrails we can govern in? And is it that you believe they need to be governed in. And regardless of if we had to govern them in, what do you think such guard rails would be anyways? Or do you think no guardrails can ever be created to solve this problem of vileness and deceit.
- gausswho 6mo ago
  I abused my preposition there (in), sorry for the confusion. I meant in in the sense of bringing some new policy in to play to address the challenges of misinformation. There are tools of government policy that can shape speech, but the good ones I can think of are indirect and have long delay. Subsidizing higher education is one way. Raising new humans to enjoy and participate in critical thinking, at a scale high enough to broadly shape culture to engage in a reasoned and empirical stance about the world, benefiting even those who didn't participate in higher education. That to me is the gold standard. The folks actually making vaccines and discussing their efficacy. I'd expect them to be a product of this government investment. There's a reason some politicians take great pains to kneecap such funding. What I think is futile and silly is relying on modern nation states, with all their foibles, to effectively legislate and punish/reward what's incorrect/ethical among the myriad voices, in the myriad forms of communication that's going on in the oppressive now. I'd generally be shameless, hapless, corrupt. Counterproductive. The failures pile up, folks dream up the next option, which usually is on the path heavier state intrusion into our lives. I'd gladly discuss counterexamples to my angle here, if you'd like to provide them.