What is this "free speech" game?

[Razard86]

.....the irony is people don't understand why you don't censor speech. Censoring speech doesn't solve the underlying issue. The reason you want the speech censored is because it makes you uncomfortable. By censoring the speech, you stop the full expression of people with divergent views. The more you suppress something the more pressure it builds until it "pops." We have seen this with alcohol, and obviously with the war on drugs as well. When you try to suppress something....you just make it worse. Its better to let it happen and call it out. Freedom of Speech is one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind...and one of the few I can't believe we actually achieved....and hilariously....we are thinking about doing away with it.

[Rokazulu]

We have to understand that we live in a heavily propagandized culture.

"Misinformation" is subjective until you can prove it to everyone as misinformation.
Which is why freedom of speech is important.

If something is misinformation, you have to discuss the points as to why.
Saying the words "it is false" can convince anyone of anything, given the source.
But, if someone doesn't trust the source, then they at least deserve the reasons as to why you believe it to be false.
And the reasons must hold up to every scrutiny.
If you don't provide the reasons as to why you believe something is false, how are we to trust your judgement?

The state disinformation board was recently shut down, because groups from the right and the left (such as the ACLU) saw the absolute danger of limiting freedom of speech. We dodged a totalitarian bullet.

Let's keep in mind all the people who were censored for providing "misinformation" or obscene truths
-Galileo
-Albert Einstein
-Copernicus
-Socrates
-Mark Twain
-J.D. Salinger
-James Joyce
-Anne Frank
-William Shakespeare

Even if you really are factual, and really are looking at information that would be more positive for society to know. The ends do not justify the means. And the end means of censorship, is often prison or execution.
 

Edited May 23, 2022 by Rokazulu

[zurew]

40 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

"Misinformation" is subjective until you can prove it to everyone as misinformation.
Which is why freedom of speech is important.

 Misinformation only make sense when we are talking about falsfiable claims. If you make claims that are falsifiable and they turn out to be false, then you shared misinformation.

40 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

And the reasons must hold up to every scrutiny

This just won't happen. Not every study hold the same level of reliability. There are peer reviewed studies and there are not peer reviewed studies. There are studies that are checked by multiple different kind of parties and there are frash new studies that are not checked by third parties.

 

But at the same time making claims that are not falsifiable can also be some kind of a misinformation. When someone make very confidently such causality claims that are impossibble to disprove or to falsify that also is damaging to the global sensemaking. THe question comes up :Why talk about stuff that you yourself can't prove?

Edited May 23, 2022 by zurew

[Rokazulu]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

If you make claims that are falsifiable and they turn out to be false, then you shared misinformation.

 

Consciousness is inherently subjective.
Who therefore, subjectively decides "false"?


 

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

This just won't happen.

 

Up to you.

How about the rest of what I mentioned?

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

Consciousness is inherently subjective.
Who therefore, subjectively decides "false"?

If we were to take this kind of reasoning , then we wouldn't be able to do any science. Because ultimately everything is relative, but that is irrelevant in this context. There are claims that can be investigated and falsified, we don't have to make the 'absolute argument' and forget all the nuance.

9 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

Up to you.

Not just up to me, do you disagree that not all studies have the same level of reliancy? 

9 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

How about the rest of what I mentioned?

Yes thats a good point, that for example cutting edge stuff wouldn't be able to go through. But cutting edge stuff don't need to be on a social platform, that stuff need to be discussed by academics and if the cutting edge people can pass through their stuff than they can change the way things and structures work. 

Also, i said in my previous post (not to you , but to yarco ) that you could label and tag your post if you share information that you not necessarily know that it is true or not. That way you could share information without getting banned for it.

Also different platforms can have different set of rules.

Edited May 23, 2022 by zurew

[something_else]

5 hours ago, Razard86 said:

.....the irony is people don't understand why you don't censor speech. Censoring speech doesn't solve the underlying issue. The reason you want the speech censored is because it makes you uncomfortable. By censoring the speech, you stop the full expression of people with divergent views. The more you suppress something the more pressure it builds until it "pops." We have seen this with alcohol, and obviously with the war on drugs as well. When you try to suppress something....you just make it worse. Its better to let it happen and call it out. Freedom of Speech is one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind...and one of the few I can't believe we actually achieved....and hilariously....we are thinking about doing away with it.

This thinking is too black and white

Yes, over-censorship can cause things to build up and burst, but allowing them free reign of a public platform spreads those ideas to more and more people who end up getting sucked in which is far worse

People get brainwashed super easily, we know that. Society has a responsibility to try and prevent people from being dragged into harmful ideology

Think mums radicalised into anti-vax through Facebook and the potential harm that causes. That’s a prime example of this dynamic

There was a thread here recently of a dude who got radicalised by 4chan (a paragon of free speech online) and ended up shooting 10 black people

[Consept]

19 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

Consciousness is inherently subjective.
Who therefore, subjectively decides "false"?

Consciousness is of course subjective but when someone provides information and presents it as "true" there has to be some criteria for that. For example if someone made the statement 'The election was fraudulently won', they would have to have sufficient proof to verify that claim. If there is sufficient proof that there was no fraud had taken place then there two subjective truths and the two viewpoints should not be weighted the same, one is an idea or a theory and the other is what can be verified as true. It might have been true that there was fraud and if theres evidence thats fine. 

Now you can have a subjective opinion or even speculate, thats fine but it cant be equated to something that is provably true. What we're seeing in recent times is that people are taking speculation and opinions and weighting them the same as if they were verified truth. This is potentially dangerous as we've seen with various incidents already including jan 6th. So I think the problem really is deception, if youre presenting something that is opinion or speculation and is demonstrably untrue and potentially dangerous, should that be allowed on public platforms? 

[Rokazulu]

Agree or disagree. Yes, discussion is the point. That is also science. What is reviewed is reviewed. Light is shed on differences. More experiments, peer reviews, and research is done as a result of anyone deciding what is true and false within studies. Collective opinion grows out of that virtue. Actions out of those opinions.

 

Quote

Also, i said in my previous post (not to you , but to yarco ) that you could label and tag your post if you share information that you not necessarily know that it is true or not. That way you could share information without getting banned for it.

That would be ideal to have that kind of honesty, and ideally you wouldn't get banned either, someone would simply point out as to why they don't know it to be true. To ensure fairness.

[seriousman24]

Would having a speech censoring feature that you can turn off if you want be okay?Then you can have both groups satisfied.Maybe exclude minors to protect them.