Comment by Sohcahtoa82 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sohcahtoa82 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Why are we so worried about adults reading incorrect information?

Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

And I imagine the owners of Comet Ping Pong would have greatly preferred that adults didn't read lies about Hillary running a child sex ring in their basement. [0]

Haitian immigrants in Ohio certainly weren't fans of Trump claiming that they're kidnapping and eating pets.

Speech has consequences.

> Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source.

...have you been living in a cave for the last 10 years? I just can't fathom how someone can be so naive to actually think this.

If there was any truth to this, Infowars would have been damn near been dead on arrival. Fox News would have been bankrupt before Obama even began his second term.

Or maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse and operating under the assumption that people will accept when they're wrong.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

Sorry but I'm not willing to live in an insane orwellian world just so your grandma gets her vaccine. It's her family's responsiblity to convince her and if she still refuses shes an adult she has the right to refuse treatment and vaccines.

As for libel, it has always existed and always will. There are laws against it to protect people if they suffer any damage from it. It's not without consequences.

What you're proposing is so much worse. Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose. How will you protect yourself from the goverment's false accusations?

> Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose

You're straw-manning. I never proposed anything like government enforcement against misinformation.

I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.

Who gets to decide what is misinformation is an entirely different issue. But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation. Again, set aside the question of "Well, who decides what is misinformation?" and consider just the mere concept of it.

> You're straw-manning. I never proposed anything like government enforcement against misinformation.

Tyranny is the only alternative to free speech. I just don't see it ending in any other way.

> I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.

Awesome! Then we can stop making such a big deal out of misinformation and protect free speech.

> But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation.

Yes lying is unethical it's been established thousands of years ago.

> Then we can stop making such a big deal out of misinformation and protect free speech.

As long as misinformation is costing people's lives, I will make a big deal out of it.

I recognize that I am raising a stink about a problem without proposing a solution.

> Yes lying is unethical it's been established thousands of years ago.

It took us way too long to realize that we agree.

Tyrany is orthogonal to free speech. You can absolutely abuse free speech to enact tyranny -- hell just look at Weimar era Germany.

Absolutist free speech would allow you to publicly plot the assassination of whomever you wanted to, or permit insider trading, etc.

Speech is a tool. It's utility and morality depends on the weilder of it.

Hmmm... I really wonder what the said tyrants did when they got into power? Oh that's right they imposed heavy restrictions on speech and all forms of media. And it's not like there was free speech before them, the Weimar republic tried banning them as well. It's almost like challenging ideas and defeating them on an intellectual level is far better than trying to supress them.

... Yeah but they didn't do that before they were in power. They abused misinformation to get to a position to then lock it down. That's indeed what I'm saying.n I'm not disagreeing that they lock it down once in power.

> Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

So the misinformation didn't affect your decision making. Instead, the misinformation you were exposed to was corrected by your exposure to more, better information.

Yes, but that correction doesn't reach everyone. Again thus, "speech has consequences"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com