Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The 2016 US Election in particular showed us what happens when a platform takes a "hands off" approach - the platform is absolutely saturated with false, hateful information... And yet, presumably you were able to employ critical thinking, see past all this, and vote the "right" way despite an alleged deluge of hateful misinformation, as were 48%, a majority, of your fellow voters. Where is the evidence that the le…
This conversation will definitely be easier to follow if you get up to speed first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... Where is the evidence that the level of misinformation is any higher now than in the past, See the above overview for a start. History has shown that we didn't need to censor and oppress Communist thought in the US during the Cold War because of its alleged threat, and ev…
> 3. "Censorship" is when a person is not allowed to express their views. That is not what is being proposed here. This is about refusing to hand a megaphone to bad actors.
Censorship, historically, was preventing objectionable books from being published. In many forms of censorship, there was nothing theoretically preventing an author of objectionable books from handwriting them and distributing them privately, so long as they didn't draw too much attention to themselves. The historical censors could have made an identical argument to yours: they were merely depriving the objectionable view of a "megaphone" (the publisher), not eliminating the view entirely.
But given what you have asserted above about the importance of breadth of reach for views, it would seem to me that preventing a view from being widely disseminated in any practical way to people who would otherwise freely choose to read or hear the view is the very essence of censorship.
But more broadly, my real problem with your viewpoint is perfectly exemplified here:
> I also have an IQ in the 90-99th percentile range...
> Relying upon the populace to suddenly become savvy is not realistic.
Firstly, with deep respect, this is incredibly arrogant. But nevertheless, you may be right about this, that only the enlightened and educated few can discern truth from falsity and make informed choices.
But if you are right, don't you see that this undermines the bedrock assumptions and principles of democracy? The masses must be led, and shown the "right" information and protected from the "wrong" information? By whom? And what is to prevent those elite and enlightened few from acting in their own interests rather than those of the ignorant mob?
I see within your argument, which may not be factually wrong, a powerful argument in favor of authoritarianism and oligarchy. Any argument that leads to such conclusions is worth a fair amount of scrutiny, no?
Even if it is a fiction that all voters are equally intelligent and informed, sometimes we have found that certain fictions are very important prerequisites for creating a desirable society. For example, the fiction that "all men are created equal". They aren't. But we use that fiction in very important ways to create a more just and equal society. Another is the fiction of free will. Free will does not exist. But still, we treat people as if they had free will, because the alternative is disempowering and decouples people from any responsibility for their actions.
So, I think "the demos makes more-or-less informed choices that are more-or-less in its own self-interest" is another of those necessary fictions, necessary to prevent us from regressing to feudalism or worse.