Yes, the worst pecan now find millions. You mention "Unchallenged lies". The opposite of that is challenged/censored truths. Both cause harm. Where do you see the right mix and should it be centrally controlled? We all want truth, and does someone get to be the one authority on truth?
Yes, the worst pecan now find millions. You mention "Unchallenged lies". The opposite of that is challenged/censored truths. Both cause harm. Where do you see the right mix and should it be centrally controlled? We all want truth, and does someone get to be the one authority on truth?
If you agree with the decider, then calling it an evasion is convenient as it doesn't impact you. All other scenarios, especially where you vehemently disagree with the decider, and it is never just evasion. My point is self-evident.
Yet people complain that Musk decided to reduce censorship on twitter when he bought it. They see a difference in policy pertaining to censorship based upon who would be the decider, Harris or Trump. It is very widely viewed as a BFD.
I am interested in the reason why you think it is evasion. Not to argue or try to change your mind, but to understand that thought. i view you as an intelligent man so I don't dismiss your view just because it is different from mine.
I have to respectfully dissent. "Who gets to decide" is the CORE issue about managed information (ie: censorship).
It's like saying "we could save a lot of trouble by just immediately jailing all criminals without the expense of trials". The key problem is "who gets to decide which people get immediately jailed, absent the give and take of testing competing narratives and evidence provided by a trial?".
In a system using democratic voting, control of information is control of government, period.
I do agree about social media sometimes bringing out the worst in people. Alas, I think elections today also do that.
If the Trump administration tries to impose "truth filtering" onto legacy media or social media, will you find value in free speech again? Will the question of "who controls it" seem more central, and less like just an evasion, then?
Yes, the worst pecan now find millions. You mention "Unchallenged lies". The opposite of that is challenged/censored truths. Both cause harm. Where do you see the right mix and should it be centrally controlled? We all want truth, and does someone get to be the one authority on truth?
тАЬWho gets to decideтАЭ isnтАЩt an argument, itтАЩs an evasion
If you agree with the decider, then calling it an evasion is convenient as it doesn't impact you. All other scenarios, especially where you vehemently disagree with the decider, and it is never just evasion. My point is self-evident.
Yet people complain that Musk decided to reduce censorship on twitter when he bought it. They see a difference in policy pertaining to censorship based upon who would be the decider, Harris or Trump. It is very widely viewed as a BFD.
I am interested in the reason why you think it is evasion. Not to argue or try to change your mind, but to understand that thought. i view you as an intelligent man so I don't dismiss your view just because it is different from mine.
I have to respectfully dissent. "Who gets to decide" is the CORE issue about managed information (ie: censorship).
It's like saying "we could save a lot of trouble by just immediately jailing all criminals without the expense of trials". The key problem is "who gets to decide which people get immediately jailed, absent the give and take of testing competing narratives and evidence provided by a trial?".
In a system using democratic voting, control of information is control of government, period.
I do agree about social media sometimes bringing out the worst in people. Alas, I think elections today also do that.
If the Trump administration tries to impose "truth filtering" onto legacy media or social media, will you find value in free speech again? Will the question of "who controls it" seem more central, and less like just an evasion, then?