Free Speech Is the Wrong Problem
messyprogress.substack.com
messyprogress.substack.com
If you are ever able to find a definition of 'verifiably factually incorrect claims' that is accepted by everyone, the red squiggly is the trivial part.
It might have been a good strategy for the age when information was scarce. But in abundance it wrecks us.
Counter perspective: We are way past the era in which an authority broadcasts "The Righteous Truth." This model has been dying a slow death since the second spoken word.
The rapid spread of ideas is fine and well. 'Experts' doing the vetting are often wrong or misguided, even in time. Credentialing and trust will evolve to accommodate a fast-paced spread of ideas. The high priests of today's opinion-based hyperventilating "authorities" will pass as time reveals them to be untrustworthy frauds.
The notion that the loudest and most populist voices that make ridiculous arguments and appeal to sentimentality - have anything to do with the 'truth' or anything positive, is obviously wrong, and for some reason seems to be deeply rooted in some circles.
Ironically, it's a glibly populist view of glib populism.
Next time you visit your 'Corrupt High Priest Doctor' who represents the institution of Medicine, who recommends a therapy, why don't you ignore him and make your own concoction, at home, using the 'alt method' you discovered on some podcast? Good luck.
Doctors and Medical researches have a fundamentally better understanding of the human body that idiots on Twitter.
Which is why some medicine is 'behind the counter' and we don't argue about that very much.
Ideas and memes can define reality, and those who have the power to define reality will possibly abuse it which is why it's not in anyone's interest to have insane people influence how we think.
'Freedom of Expression' is a fundamental and inalienable right, so if Alex Jones wants to believe that Sandy Hook victims are 'actors' it's his right, it may even be his right to stand on the corner and yell it at the top of his lungs, email individuals, or put it on his own web page. But there's also no reason for us to facilitate spread of garbage through the public commons or other sites.
People have been following Sandy Hook families, harassing them and the adversarial courts system is no place to have that worked out.
Similarly with people trying to overthrow the government on lies about election results.
The truth is difficult, it's always subject to perspective and context, most mediums are biased, all institutions have their flaws, and freedom of expression is a fundamental right, at the same time, truth does really matter and it's in everyone's interest to have quality information in the commons, and not noise, or worse, idiots usurping the channels for their own diabolical stupidity.
If the doctor recommends that the treatment to a strong cold is to amputate your hands, will you just agree to it or will you apply some level of your own discernment?
> Doctors and Medical researches have a fundamentally better understanding of the human body that idiots on Twitter.
And yet there were (and are) a ton of doctors prescribind Hydroxicloroquine and Ivermectin to their covid patients.
> Which is why some medicine is 'behind the counter' and we don't argue about that very much.
We argue about it all the time. That's why people get second, third and fourth opinions. That's why there are medical panels. That's why people sue doctors for malpractice.
Are you suggesting that doctors don't have an institutiona legitimacy?
Seriously?
Hydroxicloroquine and Ivermectin? They are medicine. Doctors have been prescribing them for a while. We don't know the full effects of them, but we also know they are otherwise benigng in specific dosages, and there were hopes that there wouldbe an effect. It's good that some Hosptials were making the prescription.
And finally, no, we do not argue over the concept of 'behind the counter drugs'.
There is 0 debate anywhere that people should just be able to 'self prescribe' and get what drugs they want.
That doctors can be wrong is besides the point.
I don't think you've made any arguments to suggest that we shouldn't remain having some fairly serious instittional legitimcay in the field of medicine.
One reply to "Would you jump off a bridge if all your friends did it?" would be "Yes. My friends are not stupid. If they are all jumping without exception, it's probably because the bridge is on fire."
... is an obvious strawman.
> Next time you visit your 'Corrupt High Priest Doctor' who represents the institution of Medicine, who recommends a therapy, why don't you ignore him and make your own concoction, at home, using the 'alt method' you discovered on some podcast?
Again an obvious strawman. Your doctor vs "some podcast". According to a survey done in april 2022, 5.2% of U.S. primary care doctors weren't vaxxed against covid[1]. If you had such a doctor, would you override his judgement based on stuff you've read on the internet? I would.
> Ideas and memes can define reality, and those who have the power to define reality will possibly abuse it which is why it's not in anyone's interest to have insane people influence how we think.
Woah, sounds dangerous. Should anyone have the power to "define reality"? At least we can trust that those who have to power to stop others from "defining reality" will not abuse it.
[1]: https://theconversation.com/the-1-in-10-u-s-doctors-with-res...
The entire nature of 'free speech without consequences' is about populist appeal to stupidity.
The evidence exists in the fact that 30% of Americans believe the election was stolen despite there being no material evidence.
And all sorts of other things.
You should read some newspapers or watch news. Damn, even Wikipedia has this problem.
As much as I like to doubt a lot of "experts with PR agents", the established community vetting process did evolve for a reason and survived centuries in one form or another.
The emerging moderation rules and techniques are just another facet of that evolution.
Good luck with your fight. Please don't stop, it serves as a part of the process. Just as TFA does.
Help me out here, so this person who does not have a history of going "viral" which I assume means likes by well reputed long term accounts that have good ad engagement (they buy stuff in reponse to ads) makes some content and their algorithm allows that to go viral because ______? No proven commercial or reputationsl benefit. So what gives?
These problems are too big for any single person's contribution to make a meaningful impact in solving, so it is in no individual's self-interest to contribute instead of free ride on other people's contributions.