• Hanover
    12k
    The broadest form of the argument in support of an absolutist view on the right to free speech is that it is through argument that we reach higher truth. Only through the exchange of ideas can society evolve its knowledge base. Should we wish to evolve intellectually as a society, we cannot stifle speech, but must let the ignorant speak freely so that their ignorance can be corrected. This position is summarized in this quote from John Stuart Mill:

    "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

    His position was not new, but was consistent with the times, as the same principle had already been enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution prior to his birth:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    The two are different is particulars, but the same generally. Mill's position was philosophical, applying in all instances, whereas the Constitution's concern was solely in limiting the government's ability to control speech, but making no suggestion that free speech be protected in other contexts. In both instances, however, the right to speak is of the highest order.

    Before getting to Twitter, a very cursory overview of the history of the press is in order. Historically, the power of the press has been in the hands of the very few. From the invention of the printing press, those who had access to it, and the paper and distribution means available to them, had a disproportionately loud voice. The same held true when new mass media means were created. Those who published newspapers, transmitted over radio waves, had access to television transmissions, and those who had access to cable transmissions held the power to communicate as they saw fit, while the rest of us could only hope to have our letter to the editor accepted for publication.

    Twitter, and other forms of internet communications, has broken down many of the barriers in the past, giving the power of mass communication to regular people in their living rooms. This should come as great news to Mill, as this wide open communication will allow all ignorance to be explored and erased.
    Of course, that doesn't seem to be what's going on though.

    It would seem counterintuitive that we might today harken back to the days when mass communication was a purely elitist enterprise, controlled by a handful of corporate executives. Were those actually the good old days, when we could trust our news sources to do their best to be accurate and honest?

    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.

    So what is the solution I'm suggesting? We only need to look at the journalistic ethics previously demanded when mass media existed on a smaller scale. An example of them are here: https://www.medialook.al/en/the-5-principles-of-ethical-journalism/

    "1. Truth and Accuracy
    Journalists cannot always guarantee ‘truth’, but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism. We should always strive for accuracy, give all the relevant facts we have and ensure that they have been checked. When we cannot corroborate information we should say so.

    2. Independence
    Journalists must be independent voices; we should not act, formally or informally, on behalf of special interests whether political, corporate or cultural. We should declare to our editors – or the audience – any of our political affiliations, financial arrangements or other personal information that might constitute a conflict of interest.

    3. Fairness and Impartiality
    Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.

    4. Humanity
    Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others.

    5. Accountability
    A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair."

    While perhaps the government should not enforce these rules (as noted in the 1st Amendment), Mill's ideal cannot be accomplished without an adherence to these standards. Nothing is gained by knowingly promoting false, harmful, unapologetic, unexamined claims. Musk's assertion that he is an absolutist is better stated as that he is simply an unethical journalist. Equating a review board to a censorship committee is to argue there should be no ethical oversight.

    I also think it's not a coincidence that those who have chosen journalism as a degree have the most regret (87%). https://thepostmillennial.com/journalism-is-most-regretted-major-for-college-grads . It's impossible to compete and be ethical at the same time.

    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).

    I also want to give credit here, to this article, for sparking many of these ideas: https://philosophynow.org/issues/151/Mill_Free_Speech_and_Social_Media#:~:text=Mill%E2%80%99s%20Argument%20For%20Free%20Speech
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    Agree completely. Well argued.

    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

    That's it in a nutshell.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.2k


    But Hanover, where does the censorship end? What about the greased precipice?

    Seriously, though, I think the argument in favor of free speech absolutism is more often that it is binary - either free speech exists and all speech is allowed, or speech is limited and it doesn't exist - and you definitely should want it to exist, whether because it advances knowledge through dialogue or censorship is a slippery slope.

    But I don't know about applying the same kind of scrutiny we apply to journalists to regular people. I think most people qualify as unethical journalists, honestly. I mean, who on this forum actually abides by those principles all that consistently?

    Not to mention it would be a tremendous pain in the ass to actually sift through shitty far-right and far-left memes all day looking for people not acting like ethical journalists. It only even works on this forum because you guys shut off the inflow of shit-posters and trolls - some of which still get through.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.2k
    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

    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
    1.2k


    I would say that the discourse that develops with less limits on speech is somewhat stochastic, insofar as trends can be recognized - but you cannot always point directly to the cause of a bad outcome as it relates to the speech of someone specific. So, it makes little sense to go on a banning spree to reduce far-right extremism, but it makes sense to directly address speech found to be problematic, as it operates against that which is problematic from within the discourse, which is desirable.
  • Tzeentch
    3.3k
    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.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    It appears that rather than “extract the good from free speech” you would prefer to extract the good from censorship. I say this because only through censorship can you eliminate the kinds of speech you do not like, and enforce the ones you do. This is far more terrifying than having to read some false or silly opinion, in my mind. You could apply those journalistic standards towards your own speech, like anyone else, and we would all be the better for witnessing “the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error”, as per Mill; but now we are on the path to denying even that.

    I like what Karl Jaspers said of censorship. He knew a little about it, having lived under a Nazi publication ban. “Censorship doesn’t make anything better. Both censorship and freedom will be abused. The question is simply: which abuse is preferable? Where’s the greater prospect? Censorship leads to both the suppression of truth and its distortion, while freedom only leads to its distortion. Suppression is absolute, but distortion can be straightened out by freedom itself.”

    Suppression is absolute, and in that sense the advocate of censorship is an absolutist. Even if we were to legislate truth and enforce truth-telling, we risk placing considerable power of the censor 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”. We’ve seen this recently with the growing number of state laws criminalizing fake news and “misinformation”, which have invariably been used to stifle dissent and criticism, such as in Egypt and China. With such rules we create an Official Truth, which is far more dangerous to inquiry and higher-truths. At least with free speech we have a chance to compete with such power on an even playing field.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.2k
    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

    Hanover says he doesn't think the government should necessarily enforce the ethical standards he proposes.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.2k
    I like what Karl Jaspers said of censorship. He knew a little about it, having lived under a Nazi publication ban.NOS4A2

    Took a little under two hours this time.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    Took a little under two hours this time.

    For what?
  • ToothyMaw
    1.2k


    For you to mention the Nazis.
  • Tzeentch
    3.3k
    Hanover says he doesn't think the government should necessarily enforce the ethical standards he proposes.ToothyMaw

    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.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.2k


    Some sort of advisory board like the mods of this website, apparently. Logistically unfeasible unless it is only applied to public figures.
  • Tzeentch
    3.3k
    That would just shift the power to whoever appoints the advisors.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    Just a point of fact. No matter the political party the aims for censorship are largely similar.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.2k
    That would just shift the power to whoever appoints the advisors.Tzeentch

    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
  • Hanover
    12k
    say this because only through censorship can you eliminate the kinds of speech you do not like, and enforce the ones you do.NOS4A2

    There is always censorship do to lack of resources, meaning those who publish do so only after securing the means to publish from those owning the means of publication. Musk is the censor, and should he allow greater exposure to those based upon the interest they garner, then his standard of censorship is based upon popularity. As I would suggest, since resources are limited, publication should be based upon standards aimed at presenting truth, as opposed to the arbitrary standard of who can yell loudest. Those standards were itemized in my post.

    The idea that my voice is heard at the level of Trump's is false, which has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with supply and demand. If speech ought be free on the basis of it being a market commodity I can offer as I choose, that is a far different basis than what Mill suggested for why speech ought be unregulated. That has nothing to do with elevating intellectual discourse, but has to do with a libertarian market view.
  • Hanover
    12k
    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

    I'd prefer the now antiquated concept of self regulation, where news outlets adhere to journalistic standards. That used to be a thing.
  • Hanover
    12k
    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 themTzeentch

    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
    12k
    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

    I suppose we'll wait and see, and maybe he'll censor reasonably. I only know he proclaimed himself a free speech absolutist and reopened previously closed accounts.
  • introbert
    333
    Free speech has never guaranteed what you write will be published. You always could publish whatever you like yourself, but pamphleteering on the street and shouting loudly from a corner will only reach so many people. I see no reason why social media has to publish everything and anything. I strongly believe someone can say anything if they say it the right way. Anything can get past the censors if one is adept enough.
  • Hanover
    12k
    He knew a little about it, having lived under a Nazi publication ban. “Censorship doesn’t make anything better.NOS4A2

    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?
  • T Clark
    13k
    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

    I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion. It seems like governments in the US are turning toward more regulation for social media sites. I've heard that there is some talk about treating them as public utilities like the phone, electric power, gas, water, and sewer utilities. This would allow the government to have a role in how they are operated and who can have access. I don't know how I feel about that.
  • Outlander
    1.8k
    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

    I'll bite. What if slavery was legal. Or some other "one-day-to-be" widely condemned practice or belief that goes on commonplace in society that we have yet to determine is grossly inhumane.

    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. This is passive. Generally speaking if it were active ie. actively recruiting others into a tangible collective that creates real and imminent danger to "X people", that is no longer free speech. Similar to how people can die if you shout "fire" in a crowded theater or that a random stranger on the street just sexually assaulted your child. Interestingly enough even telling someone you know cannot fight that another person who is extremely skilled in fighting is calling them very offensive names, or slept with their wife, etc. All these things can get people killed. "Free speech" is a relative amendment of an absolute, that absolute being "right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness". It is conditional and only exists when the absolute is present and not obstructed.

    Moreover, the difference between the online environment and real life is in public (not private homes or establishments that many people mistake as true "public areas") there are the following laws along the lines of: "inciting a riot" (that guy's a terrorist!), "disturbing the peace" (shouting offensive things), "assault" (yelling in someone's face or stating intent to harm), "harassment" (anything short of the aforementioned) that can pretty much shut you up in any and all scenarios where said speech would become a problem (ie. the relative does not exist because the absolute is not applicable). This is a real legal action performed with an authorized law enforcement officer and the person directly in the real world. This would get complicated with said "world" being nothing more than a series of 1's and 0's that anyone can manipulate and "officers" who may or may not ever be known or exist.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    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 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.

    It's the assignation of power to an institution to determine what is discussed in the public sphere.

    So, given that there's clear advantages to placing limits on free speech too (hate speech, incitement to violence, propagation of potentially dangerous lies...) the question is how we achieve that with as little of the disadvantages as possible.

    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).

    Intellectual debate took place in journals and required qualification in the subject matter (plus peer review in some cases).

    Political debate took place in our houses of government and required election to membership of those houses.

    Public debate took place wherever and required only the bare minimum rules of polite society.

    The problem with free speech these days (Twitter, etc) has nothing to do with struggling to find a system to regulate untruth. We had one of those already. 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.

    During Covid, Ukraine, the whole 'trans' thing we've seen actual qualified experts in their field banned from speaking in certain areana by nerds in social media companies. We've seen politicians banned from making political statements by their opposition. 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.

    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.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    @Hanover

    It all boils down to whether people have the time & skills to argue and argue well. To make matters worse arguments, no matter how well-crafted, may not be enough to convince people of the truth.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    I don’t know anything about Elon’s intentions and am skeptical of his dedication to free speech, but Twitter is interesting in that anyone with an internet connection and an email address can secure the means to publish. So I’m not sure resources are limited in any significant regard. Since resources are not limited, at least on Twitter, publication need not be based upon standards aimed at presenting truth, as determined by Musk or whatever committee of censors.

    Free speech also entails that people have the freedom to seek out information they wish, which might explain better why your voice isn’t heard at the level of Trump’s.

    Mill’s argument was more about refusing censorship rather than elevating discourse. It ought to be refused because no one is infallible, and therefor, no one can know the whole truth; one cannot arrive to the truth of an opinion without comparing it to opposing and contradictory opinions; even if one was correct in opinion, until he compares it to an opposing opinion he knows only dogma; dogma hinders the mental growth of mankind. His arguments apply nicely to the idea that publication on Twitter should be based upon standards aimed at presenting truth.

    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?

    Goebbels regulated propaganda. Evidence of this was his editorial law, which basically made journalists Nazi party bureaucrats subordinate to him. The only way government actors can retain the monopoly on propaganda is through its regulation. The only way government propaganda can prevail is by silencing dissenting views. That’s why I oppose regulation.
  • Tzeentch
    3.3k
    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

    We can trust them because ultimately the function of this forum is benign.

    Nothing in mankind's history suggests governments deserve that kind of trust ruling over the lives and rights of people.

    I'd prefer the now antiquated concept of self regulation, where news outlets adhere to journalistic standards. That used to be a thing.Hanover

    I agree this is the best. But that also requires an audience that appreciates those things.

    A good question would be why modern societies have become less critical and more ignorant, and thus more receptive to poor journalism and propaganda.

    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

    The two often go hand-in-hand and they go hand-in-hand today. Propaganda doesn't work without first silencing the voice of reason.

    Today, government censorship is more insidious since it is hidden. It escapes the common eye. Things aren't outright banned, because governments understand they can't get away with that anymore.

    Instead they refuse to give or outright try to deny critical voices a platform (or a large enough platform to make a difference). Critical voices are denounced under the umbrella term "conspiracy theorist" to undermine their credibility and keep them from reaching large crowds, etc.

    We all understand the role of government narratives in the modern day, but "government narratives" are nothing but propaganda and censorship under a different guise.

    In a healthy society the media provides critical, well-balanced coverage. However, the media are all bought and paid for by those it should be scrutinizing. It would be a mistake to believe we do not live in an environment of propaganda and censorship on par with humanity's blackest pages.
  • Hanover
    12k
    . 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

    The FCC already maintains some regulatory control over the airwaves because it considers them public property, but, even then it is very limited.

    "Congress through Section 326 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 326, explicitly declared that nothing in the statute

    'shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the [broadcast] communications or signals transmitted by any [broadcast] station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of [over-the-air] broadcast communication.'

    The FCC does impose certain restraints and obligations on broadcasters. Speech regulations are confined to specific topics, which usually have been identified by Congress through legislation or adopted by the FCC through full notice-and-comment rulemaking or adjudicatory proceedings. These topics include:

    indecency,
    obscenity,
    sponsorship identification,
    conduct of on-air contests,
    hoaxes,
    commercial content in children's TV programming,
    broadcast news distortion,
    accessibility to emergency information on television, and
    inappropriate use of Emergency Alert System warning tones for entertainment or other non-emergency purposes."

    https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech

    We might assume Congress limited the application of the Act so as to not run afoul of the 1st Amendment, and it's likely Congress didn't want to provide the FCC greater power because generally speaking the public wants expansive free speech rights.
  • Hanover
    12k
    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

    It's difficult to know where to draw lines. We fortunately (right now) have sufficient social controls to regulate openly racist commentary, meaning we eliminate those from the marketplace just from their being so socially unacceptable that few are willing to interact with them

    The problem as I see it relates to the misinformation, which (the more I think about it) invokes the conflict between censorship of ideas and control of propaganda. That is, should Trump declare the election invalid, that is a specific government official (the President no less) making a claim about the legitimacy of the current government and his right to otherwise be in control. Do we just accept the fact that propaganda is an evil that can be controlled by open discourse and passively expect it to whither away, or do we have a more affirmative duty to control it?

    I'd also add that not all Western countries permit openly racist comments to be made. As in the example of Germany, they have very strict laws related to holocaust denying and hate speech. Obviously they are a nation that almost destroyed itself from such speech, and they have an interest in protecting against it recurring. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-antisemitic-hate-speech-nazi-propaganda-holocaust-denial/
  • Hanover
    12k
    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

    I don't agree with this because that assumes anyone was arguing for complete control of the media by a regulatory body. If you look at the FCC site I cited to in response to T Clark below, you'll see that it is possible to provide limited regulation as opposed to complete regulation. My assumption is that even in China where the state has lesser respect for free speech rights, the general public is still afforded some rights to speech.
    It's the assignation of power to an institution to determine what is discussed in the public sphere.Isaac

    But we're creating a false history in assuming that free speech ever really existed without institutional regulation. The government/private enterprise distinction is an important one, but it's also an idiosyncratic one in current Western nations. That is, it might not be readily apparent to someone from Mars not steeped in contemporary politics as to why we think it so objectionable when the government regulates what we say as opposed to when corporations control what we say. As noted in the OP, there was a time when there were relatively few mass media outlets, who, by agreement, regulated the press based upon some ethical rules they agreed upon. We were operating at that time under a strict regulatory scheme, but no one sees it that way because we refuse to view it as censorship because it was by private enterprise.

    And really that's precisely the only control we have right now to runaway offensive speech. Kanye can't engage in anti-Semitic talk not because the US government can stop him, but because Adidas executives won't allow it. That we're satisfied with Adidas censorship but not Congress censorship is an interesting sociological fact. It's why I'm concerned about Musk. Maybe he'll not be as good a censor as my favorite shoe manufacturer.

    As noted below in my cite to German anti-censorship laws, they have taken a different approach, largely because their history demands it. They have lost trust in the populist movement in bringing forth positive change for obvious reasons.
    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

    Sort of because Twitter is new and the cost of entry is very low, as compared to how difficult it was when I was younger to get my letter to the editor published about whatever nonsense bothered me at the time.
    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 was Trump who was posting, which means it was the government doing the posting complaining about the non-government regulating him, and also claiming the government lacked the right to regulate the government, if you follow that confusing road.
    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

    You make an odd turn at the end of this paragraph. You start by making what I take to be an incorrect statement that the government regulated anti-trans speech (which it did not), but then you equate corporations to the government. If you're going to blur the distinction between private and government, then you're going to impose a duty on private outlets (like Twitter and I guess this site) to publish everything and eliminate moderation.

    People also speak without knowing what they're talking about all the time. I assume that's always been the case.
    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

    The system in place is whatever arbitrary set of rules the owner places upon the outlet, usually designed around maximizing profitability. Are you aware of a different system?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.