О свободе слова

[ny_quant]

Не успели мы это самое обсудить в дружественном журнале как вот опять.

There is a big debate over who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline. Instead of allowing the debate, Facebook has decided to take a side. It is censoring Pulitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh. And instead of explaining, Facebook sends readers to an article in Norwegian. Watch pic.twitter.com/nN18HovBPR

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) April 19, 2023

Comments

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

What smirnfil said.

[quakestop.livejournal.com]

Ok so if someone tries to push "flat Earth" agenda it should be considered as equal as "round Earth" one? Because we don't know which one is the truth?

Besides we can see what "echo chamber" can do to a people of a certain country. And no, I'm not talking about US of A, though we can see the consequences here as well.

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

Considered by whom? You and I have one opinion and some alternatively gifted people another. Why is that a problem? Who cares? The real problem is in establishment of a central authority that has a monopoly to determine what is or is not truth, or more generally what can or cannot be discussed. The Ministry of Truth, that is.

Trying to ban conspiracy theories and all sorts of bullshit will not convince them. Better to have a free exchange and competition of ideas. Truth will win in the end.

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

"Truth will win in the end" -- it came awfully close to a disaster with Trump election claims.

It does not answer the fundamental question of who could be trusted to be the truth police but shows that we cannot just assume it.

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

OK, fair point. Maybe a bit of wishful thinking on my part. But truth won.

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

I hope you are right.

[quakestop.livejournal.com]

> Why is that a problem? Who cares?

Because of the echo chamber effect that intensifies lies people believe in. So instead of reading alternative facts they're keep digging further entrenching in their beliefs.

> Truth will win in the end.

Yeah, yeah. And the lion will lie down with the lamb.

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

How can you be so sure that *you* don't inhabit an echo chamber yourself? Especially after you ban all dissent.

[quakestop.livejournal.com]

You're making lies equal to dissent, it's not fair.

Let's consider banning all dissent in your industry — why not allow people to run Ponzi schemes or other 'get rich quick' scenarios? Why not allow people to decide for themselves where to invest because 'truth will win in the end'?

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not making them equal but what I'm saying is that sometimes it's very hard to tell which is what, and sometimes it's not black and white, and I don't want the Ministry of Truth, in any shape or form, to be the ultimate arbiter.

But 'get rich quick' schemes are in some cases legal. The most famous is called lottery.

Cheating people out of their money is not a form of dissent.

[smirnfil.livejournal.com]

Lets change a topic in your statement - "if someone tries to push "climate change" agenda it should be considered as equal as "there is no climate change" one? Because we don't know which one is the truth?" And you see how potentially dangerous the whole idea is.

[quakestop.livejournal.com]

There is a climate change and this is undeniable. The question is about origins and size of the impact on our lives.