3 ms·

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 regardles

• 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.