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 o…
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?
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?