Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

Post by double_nan » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 1:10 AM UTC

flyingcircus3 wrote: post #88

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #3

The problem is the government and traditional media have been caught lying again and again. Once that trust is broken I don't know how you rebuild it. Hell people I commonly talk to still believe a police officer was beaten to death on 1/6 and that people, other then the women shot for trying to enter the chambers, died directly due to the riot. All because of that what the news reported and quietly fixed days later…

> traditional media I see this distinction made all of the time when this topic comes up. The mainstream media is untrustworthy. Corporate media has an agenda. Legacy media is corrupt. These qualifiers all imply that there is some non-traditional, non-corporate, non-legacy media that does not have these problems. Yet whenever the people making these distinctions are asked who/what these superior alternatives are, the…

Post by steelstraw » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 1:13 AM UTC

ziroshima wrote: post #4

No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of intentions. But you've really got your head up your own ass if you convince yourself that you are protecting people by deciding the information that is appropriate for them to be exposed to. I just don't understand the shortsightedness, the naivete, or the willingness to discard the principle of free speech.

Post by double_nan » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 1:18 AM UTC

throwawaygh wrote: post #192

double_nan wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But should these ideas be censored though?

Red herring.

Post by rhaksw » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 1:29 AM UTC

mrshadowgoose wrote: post #179

rhaksw wrote: post #99

Moderation should be fully reviewable. I made a site to do this for reddit [1]. As of this hour, user pages [2] work best because the archive service is down. Subreddit history pages [3], which show where the community and mods have disagreed the most, also still work. [1] https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq [2] https://www.reveddit.com/y/rhaksw [3] https://www.reveddit.com/v/worldnews/history

Thank you for the work you are doing. Although I acknowledge that moderation is absolutely required to keep online communities on track, I also believe that moderation should be fully reviewable. The best approach I've come up with is that moderation results in a label (such as "spam", "hate speech", "incivility", "misinformation", etc...) being applied to a user's problematic post. New users to an online community w…

Post by throwawaylinux » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 1:48 AM UTC

canadaduane wrote: post #141

throwawaylinux wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That exactly is the trust problem. Why would trustworthy people even try to gain power, if the public assumes that those in power are untrustworthy and corrupt? To improve society. > And why would those in power remain trustworthy when the incentives are clearly in favor of abusing your power and the public assumes that you will do that anyway? They were never trustworthy to begin with if they do that. Trustworthy…

"never trustworthy to begin with" seems similar to the No True Scotsman[1] fallacy. I've been in religious circles where it's very important to defend the idea that once you believe, you're saved. But there's a darker side to that idea, because in order to maintain belief in the face of someone doubting and leaving the faith, everyone in the faith explains it away with "Oh, they never Really Believed in the first pla…