The meta-lesson here is "do unto others as they'll do unto you after next midterms".

Suppression of misinformation during one era is suppression of protests in another era.

You're right that the reality of the current day is what TFA is about - but GP is mentioning that we built this reality.

▲

Waterluvian 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Fair. The civil tolerance of speech we don’t like.

	▲	aisenik 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		An informed and educated populace is essential to the function of any universal democracy. The regulation of capital is essential to maintain efficient markets. It follows that the regulation of capital with respect to communications is necessary to maintain democracy and efficient markets under a notionally capitalist system. There's clear moral valence to this issue. The popular (mis)understanding of freedom of speech as applied to corporations is in direct contradiction to the notional principles of western sociopolitical ideology. Resolving this conflict is only difficult because of our conditioning.

▲

RIMR an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This lesson doesn't make sense in a two-party system where the two parties have wildly different levels of trustworthiness.

The left suppressing lies only opens the door to the right suppressing the truth, because the right was an enemy of truth and a spreader of lies from the beginning. The answer can't be "allow the lies so the truth has a chance to survive", that's just a compromise that brings us further from the truth.

Demanding neutrality on truthfulness in mass communication, especially during extreme political turbulence, is a terrible idea.

	▲	jvanderbot an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You're missing the point - if someone, broadly and irrevocably, is responsible for deciding what is true and repressing things that say otherwise, then that mechanism, even if used truthfully by one party and viciously by another, is itself a bad mechanism by virtue of being so easily abused. The very existence of a "bad others" in your government implies you do not want to give power to government. That is the whole point. if you add power while you're in office, you better believe that power will be used against you while you're not. It's not about good vs bad, it's about giving power to an organization that itself can be flipped good or bad by one election. Of course "ours==good, theirs==bad" is a different, dangerous cognitive problem, but institutional power creep is orthogonal and needs to be fought regardless to protect all of us from that power being used against all of us. That is a prerequisite to civil society wherein we're forced to live with people with completely different world views. Because right now, platforms can and do cave to government pressure, so they're just thin proxy enforcement arms against dissent.
	▲	rdm_blackhole 24 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> The left suppressing lies only opens the door to the right suppressing the truth, because the right was an enemy of truth and a spreader of lies from the beginning. It must be so nice to live in this imaginary world where the left does no wrong whatsoever but the right is the evil incarnate. Furthermore, who decides what lies are and what truth is and who is responsible for enforcing this?
	▲	newfriend an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		left = good! right = bad! amirite?