3 ms·

I won't touch the value of exposing people to diverse views, but such a system would limit the views to only what's vetted by people and institutions regulating

by dictum 13y ago

I won't touch the value of exposing people to diverse views, but such a system would limit the views to only what's vetted by people and institutions regulating that system. The conspiracy theorists of Sunstein's paper have a term for this: controlled opposition. So you have a website espousing a political view. You'd have to put a section listing other views... but what views do you put in that section? How would you go about deciding what views are opposite to yours? What about less known views? Soon you'd get something like an AdSense For Opinions; an ad area with three views, each with a short description. "DRUGS FOR A BETTER LIFE. We believe every human should use more drugs and medicines daily. betterlifethroughdrugs.org", "US DOLLAR: ROOT OF ALL EVIL. US Dollar proven root of all evil, Bible proof inside. See our proposed alternative currencies. dollar-evil-get-saved.com", "EVERYTHING IS NICE. Life is pretty much swell, man. Chill out. whatareyouevenworriedabout.net" Every possible political position and opinion would have to be considered if you want to show diverse views.

md224 13y ago
Right, but it seems like such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. In other words, it would not prevent people from voicing their opinions, it would merely force them to include other opinions alongside their own. You're right that such a policy isn't really feasible in terms of real-world implementation. But I do worry that the Internet has problems with polarization and filter-bubbling, and I appreciate suggestions for trying to mitigate those issues.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Torgo 13y ago
  Do you figure he'd insert opposing viewpoints into feminist "safe spaces?" Maybe people worried about the government exerting "cognitive infiltration" want a safe space free of government cognitive infiltrators.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. Yes, but it still seems an infringement on the First as it, in effect, requires people to also "say" things that they don't want to say, even if only by referencing the words of others. Also, if a person found the opposing viewpoint morally repugnant to the point where referencing it would be objectionable then he may opt to stifle his own speech in order to avoid such a reference. Free speech, of course, provides no requirement for noble motives of engaging opposing ideas, etc. as this guy proposes.

by dictum 13y ago

md224 13y ago

Right, but it seems like such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. In other words, it would not prevent people from voicing their opinions, it would merely force them to include other opinions alongside their own. You're right that such a policy isn't really feasible in terms of real-world implementation. But I do worry that the Internet has problems with polarization and filter-bubbling, and I appreciate suggestions for trying to mitigate those issues.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Torgo 13y ago
Do you figure he'd insert opposing viewpoints into feminist "safe spaces?" Maybe people worried about the government exerting "cognitive infiltration" want a safe space free of government cognitive infiltrators.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
>such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. Yes, but it still seems an infringement on the First as it, in effect, requires people to also "say" things that they don't want to say, even if only by referencing the words of others. Also, if a person found the opposing viewpoint morally repugnant to the point where referencing it would be objectionable then he may opt to stifle his own speech in order to avoid such a reference. Free speech, of course, provides no requirement for noble motives of engaging opposing ideas, etc. as this guy proposes.