free speech absolutism (a title Elon Musk has given himself) is not an ideal, but places the considerable power of the press in undeserving hands, whose objective isn't to seek higher truths and dispense with ignorance, but is for their own personal gain and self-promotion. — Hanover
free speech absolutism (a title Elon Musk has given himself) is not an ideal, but places the considerable power of the press in undeserving hands, whose objective isn't to seek higher truths and dispense with ignorance, but is for their own personal gain and self-promotion. — Hanover
The position I'm taking, and your thoughts and objections to this is what I am seeking, is that free speech absolutism (a title Elon Musk has given himself) is not an ideal, but places the considerable power of the press in undeserving hands, whose objective isn't to seek higher truths and dispense with ignorance, but is for their own personal gain and self-promotion. — Hanover
The alternative is to put the power to limit free speech in undeserving hands - those of the government. And rights were enshrined into constitutions and human rights declarations exactly because governments could not be trusted with protecting them. — Tzeentch
say this because only through censorship can you eliminate the kinds of speech you do not like, and enforce the ones you do. — NOS4A2
And he would be right. So who else would be given that power? Which ever way you wish to go about limiting free speech, the cure is worse than the disease. — Tzeentch
The alternative is to put the power to limit free speech in undeserving hands - those of the government. And rights were enshrined into constitutions and human rights declarations exactly because governments could not be trusted with protecting them — Tzeentch
Can we really evaluate intention so easily as to actually say that with any confidence? Musk would have Twitter open to anyone. He might remove the restrictions, but I don't see how that equates to giving power to anyone in particular, even if the worst oftentimes rises to the surface. It is not so predictable who will be heard over the din, and intent is not always apparent. — ToothyMaw
He knew a little about it, having lived under a Nazi publication ban. “Censorship doesn’t make anything better. — NOS4A2
So, my point is that if we wish to extract the good from free speech, instead of treating free speech like a holy rite, we have to have institutions that are willing to enforce rules on that speech (much like our world class mod team here). — Hanover
So, my point is that if we wish to extract the good from free speech, instead of treating free speech like a holy rite, we have to have institutions that are willing to enforce rules on that speech (much like our world class mod team here). — Hanover
The Nazis were better known for Goebbels and the use of the media for propoganda. Why do you prefer the free exercise of propoganda by government actors and supporters over its regulation?
Why is one poison preferable over the other? — Hanover
The Nazis were better known for Goebbels and the use of the media for propoganda. Why do you prefer the free exercise of propoganda by government actors and supporters over its regulation?
Why is one poison preferable over the other?
Probably, yes. But we do trust the mods of this site by and large, don't we? They have opinions, but when they get out of line they are reprimanded or even banned.
edit: and they are 100% essential, too — ToothyMaw
I'd prefer the now antiquated concept of self regulation, where news outlets adhere to journalistic standards. That used to be a thing. — Hanover
Government censorship is an evil to be sure, but so is government propoganda. Should Trump or Biden or their minions post false information, is that not propoganda? — Hanover
. I've heard that there is some talk about treating them as public utilities like the phone, electric power, gas, water, and sewer utilities. — T Clark
Legally (last I checked) if I wanted to I could create a self-hosted private website or blog stating that I dislike "X people" and think they do not deserve to exist. — Outlander
The problem is that if I cannot communicate to others in a democracy, that is an absolute. I cannot do it. Propaganda is not an absolute. One person's propaganda is another's truth. So whilst both might be poisons, one is readily identifiable, the other not. There's the problem of censorship. — Isaac
It's the assignation of power to an institution to determine what is discussed in the public sphere. — Isaac
Unsurprisingly (given we've been around as civilisations for thousands of years) we've already come up with a reasonable compromise. We have a system of separate arenas of discourse which have objective criteria for entry (as objective as possible, anyway). — Isaac
It has to do with governments and corporations wanting to undermine the one we had because it didn't suit their purposes, and a public backlash against that move. — Isaac
It's the government's attempts to ban those who are 'off message' that's brought about this faux searching around for how to manage 'disinformation'. How to manage 'disinformation' is bloody obvious. If you're qualified to speak in that arena, speak. If not, don't. It's worked reasonably well for hundreds of years. It only stopped working because the government and their corporate sponsors wanted to push a particular message and they didn't want any inconvenient experts disagreeing with them. — Isaac
Basically, we already had a system in place. We don't need to 'find' one. We need to stop interfering with the existing one for political and corporate gain. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.