Remix.run Logo
homeonthemtn 10 hours ago

You are on a platform that polices speech. It is evidence that policing speech helps establish civility and culture. There's nothing wrong with policing speech, but it can certainly be abused.

If you were on the early Internet, you were self policing with the help of admins all the time. The difference was you had niche populations that had a stake in keeping the peace and culture of a given board

We broke those boundaries down though and now pit strangers versus strangers for clicks and views, resulting in daily stochastic terrorism.

Police the damn speech.

softwaredoug 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For inciting violence. Sure. Free speech isn’t absolute.

But along with fringe Covid ideas, we limited actual speech on legitimate areas of public discourse around Covid. Like school reopening or questioning masks and social distancing.

We needed those debates. Because the unchecked “trust the experts” makes the experts dumber. The experts need to respond to challenges.

(And I believe those experts actually did about as best they could given the circumstances)

scuff3d 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Try to post a meme here, see how long it stays up.

More seriously, it's just not this simple man. I know people really want it to be, but it's not.

I watched my dad get sucked down a rabbit hole of qanon, Alex Jones, anti-vax nonsense and God knows what other conspiracy theories. I showed him point blank evidence that qanon was bullshit, and he just flat out refuses to believe it. He's representative of a not insignificant part of the population. And you can say it doesn't do any damage, but those people vote, and I think we can see clearly it's done serious damage.

When bonkers ass fringe nonsense with no basis in reality gets platformed, and people end up in that echo chamber, it does significant damage to the public discourse. And a lot of it is geared specifically to funnel people in.

In more mainstream media climate change is a perfect example. The overwhelming majority in the scientific community has known for a long time it's an issue. There were disagreement over cause or severity, but not that it was a problem. The media elevated dissenting opinions and gave the impression that it was somehow an even split. That the people who disagree with climate change were as numerous and as well informed, which they most certainly weren't, not by a long shot. And that's done irreparable damage to society.

Obviously these are very fine lines to be walked, but even throughout US history, a country where free speech is probably more valued than anywhere else on the planet, we have accepted certain limitations for the public good.

homeonthemtn 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I were trying to govern during a generational, world stopping epoch event, I would also not waste time picking through the trash to hear opinions.

I would put my trust in the people I knew were trained for this and adjust from there.

I suspect many of these opinions are born from hindsight.

xboxnolifes 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Letting fringe theories exist on YouTube does not stop you from accessing the WHO or CDC website.

fzeroracer 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Those fringe theories have now embedded themselves into the government itself and directly have contributed to the rot of our public health institutions. So in many ways yes, they do.

themaninthedark 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Luckily, it is possible for you to just listen to those you trust. No need for you go pick through other people's opinions.

I don't see how that turns into you needing to mandate what I read and who's opinions I hear.

scuff3d 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There has been a massive uptick in anti-vax rhetoric over the last decade. As a result some Americans have decided to not vaccinate, and we are seeing a resurgence in diseases that should be eradicated.

I have a three month old son. At the time he was being born, in my city, there was an outbreak of one of those diseases that killed more then one kid. Don't tell me this stuff doesn't have a direct impact on people.

zmgsabst 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Really?

Experts have a worse track record than open debate and the COVID censorship was directed at even experts who didn’t adhere to political choices — so to my eyes, you’re saying that you’d give in to authoritarian impulses and do worse.

judahmeek 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The problem with debate is that it hinders organized action.

At some point in any emergency, organized action has to be prioritized over debate.

Maybe that is still authoritarian, but they do say to have moderation in all things!

Gud 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No it doesn't. It allows for correct action to be taken.

aianus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

God forbid someone hinder some retarded organized action before enough peoples’ lives are ruined that our majestic rulers notice and gracefully decide to stop.

zmgsabst 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s not at all how you’re taught to handle emergencies.

From health emergencies to shootings to computer system crashes to pandemics — doing things without a reason to believe they’ll improve the situation is dangerous. You can and many have made things worse. And ignoring experts shouting “wait, no!” is a recipe for disaster.

When we were responding to COVID, we had plenty of time to have that debate in a candid way. We just went down an authoritarian path instead.

SV_BubbleTime 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The problem with debate is that it hinders organized action.

Ah… so… ”we must do something! Even if it’s the wrong thing”

Hot take.

epistasis 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Really, discussion was limited? Or blatant lies were rightly excluded from discourse?

There's a big difference, and in any healthy public discourse there are severe reputations penalties for lies.

If school reopening couldn't be discussed, could you point to that?

It's very odd how as time goes on my recollection differs so much from others, and I'm not sure if it's because of actual different experiences or because of the fog of memory.

mixmastamyk 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Blatant truths were excluded as well, and that's the main problem. See replies to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45353884

epistasis 6 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a really long thread and I'm not sure where blatant truths were excluded.

fzeroracer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> We needed those debates. Because the unchecked “trust the experts” makes the experts dumber. The experts need to respond to challenges.

We've had these debates for decades. The end result is stuff like Florida removing all vaccine mandates. You can't debate a conspiracy or illogical thinking into to going away, you can only debate it into validity.

McGlockenshire 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The "debate" ended up doing nothing but spreading misinformation.

Society as a whole has a responsibility to not do that kind of shit. We shouldn't be encouraging the spread of lies.

jader201 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Police the damn speech.

What happens when the “police” disagrees with and silences what you believe is true? Or when they allow the propagation of what you believe to be lies?

Who gets to decide what’s the truth vs. lies? The “police”?

palmfacehn 6 hours ago | parent [-]

>Who gets to decide what’s the truth vs. lies? The “police”?

This keeps coming up on this site. It seems like a basic premise for a nuanced and compassionate worldview. Humility is required. Even if we assume the best intentions, the fallible nature of man places limits on what we can do.

Yet we keep seeing posters appealing to Scientism and "objective truth". I'm not sure it is possible to have a reasonable discussion where basic premises diverge. It is clear how these themes have been used in history to support some of the worst atrocities.

frollogaston 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Depends who is doing the policing. In this case, White House was telling Google who to ban.

aeternum 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I think it was even slightly worse. The White House was effectively delegating the decision of who to ban/police to the NIH/NIAID, an organization that was funding novel coronavirus research in Wuhan.

It's easy to see how at minimum there could be a conflict of interest.

StanislavPetrov 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Policing speech for civility or spam is very different than policing speech for content that you disagree with. I was on the early internet, and on the vast majority of forums policing someone's speech for content rather than vulgarity or spam was almost universally opposed and frowned upon.

nostromo 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You've missed the point entirely.

It’s not if Google can decide what content they want on YouTube.

The issue here is that the Biden Whitehouse was pressuring private companies to remove speech that they otherwise would host.

That's a clear violation of the first amendment. And we now know that the previous Whitehouse got people banned from all the major platforms: Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc.

8 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
dotnet00 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They claim that the Biden admin pressured them to do it, except that they had been voluntarily doing it even during Trump's initial presidency.

The current administration has been openly threatening companies over anything and everything they don't like, it isn't surprising all of the tech companies are claiming they actually support the first amendment and were forced by one of the current administration's favorite scapegoats to censor things.

3 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
homeonthemtn 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you can't be trusted to police your self, then it's a natural result that others will do it for you.

nostromo 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Thankfully the constitution explicitly forbids that in the US.

homeonthemtn 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Evidently it does not because it happens all the time. See: Jimmy Kimmel 2 nights ago as your most recent example.

themaninthedark 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Huh, last I heard was that Jimmy Kimmel is back on air.

If the Trump administration had decided to follow through with their threats, ABC could have sued and won.

Lastly, Jimmy Kimmel could have(and still possibly might be able to) sue for tortious interference.

abracadaniel 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Nexstar and Sinclair are still blocking their stations from airing him which accounts for a quarter of the US.

frollogaston 8 hours ago | parent [-]

They're private companies. If the reason they're doing this is govt pressure (FCC licenses?), that's not ok though.

SV_BubbleTime 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Kimmel intentionally spread a lie to his audiences for political gain. Turns out that is against the terms of ABC’s FCC broadcast license.

They asked him to apologize and he refused, so they suspended him.

2 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
mensetmanusman 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That was abc, and they just put him back.

zmgsabst 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That causes problems on this board too.

Eg, even though completely factual and documented including the posts having citations, pointing out that BLM is Marxist in political orientation and that their violence against Asian and black small businesses doesn’t make sense through a racial justice lens but does through a Marxist revolutionary lens.

Censorship of that topic due to feelings shut down honest discussion about the largest organized political violence the US has seen in decades.

As censorship always does.

z0r 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is no mass Marxist movement in the USA. There is a left wing crippled by worse than useless identity politics.

homeonthemtn 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What on earth...