Why do "Progressives" have the most taboos?

[ThatRobGuy]

Joe Rogan likes to repeat the first one you quoted. But in my initial reply, I think I dispensed with this sort of naïve thinking. Historically, good speech alone has been inadequate to counteract the devastating effects of bad speech, especially when the path of least intellectual resistance is the one following all the misinformation.

But that's where legislative process comes into play.

I can't think of any positive meaningful changes that has happened on a particular issue via "shutting out the other side from public discourse"

It's always either been the organic process of changing hearts & minds, or via a legislative process.

For instance, on the topic of gay rights, if they had relied on the process of trying to silence opposers as their means of achieving getting equal rights, they'd still be waiting for marriage and employment rights. They tried reason first, when that failed, they made a legal case. At no point in the process did they say "people who oppose gay rights shouldn't be allowed to be heard".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That could be the case in a few select instances... but in some instances, taking the approach of suppression is what I would call intellectual laziness.

If the "deep dive into the data" required is really all that "deep", then that would be indicative of a concept that maybe isn't all that ridiculous on its surface and worth addressing, or at least worth debating.

IE: if it's something that takes the knowledge of a true subject matter expert in order to fully understand, then the appropriate course of action would be to get subject matter experts on the debate stage so people can see the exchange.

If it is something utterly ridiculous, then the ridiculous person shouldn't be shut out of public debate simply because other people find it too arduous to do a little research on the topic and formulate a coherent rebuttal.

It almost takes as much effort to form an argument in favor shutting down a silly idea (so nobody else can be exposed to it) as it would just to research what the proper rebuttal would be to their silly idea.

And I believe the latter is a more strongly convincing approach to get people on the right side.

If the people who spent countless hours trying to get Rogan de-platformed for having Robert Malone on would've spent the same amount of time looking at the data surrounding the topic, they would've been armed with the rebuttals to shoot down the incorrect information.

I feel like you're presenting an overly idealized view of debate as it occurs in present society. Surely you've experienced - or at least witnessed - such "debates" here on CF, where one party spouts some misinterpreted or just plain wrong information, another party crafts an insightful rebuttal demonstrating exactly how that information is incorrect, and the original poster just says "lol, no" or "that's wrong because I say it is" or "forget the 10 million experts who agree with you, I'm going to trust the ten who agree with me".

The real issue is a lack of intellectual curiosity and attention span - people see something shared on social media or are told something by their favorite newscaster/pundit/youtube personality and assume that it must be true. They then work from that assumption and seek out information that supports it rather than trying to verify the information. They also spread the misinformation to their friends and family - or on sites like CF - "secure" in the knowledge that they are correct. Any objections are shouted down, Gish Galloped, or just straight-up ignored.

Sure, you could have two experts debate the issue, but that's not going to accomplish anything meaningful for a couple reasons:
1. The audience for the debate is going to primarily be people who have that intellectual curiosity and have (most likely) already determined what is and isn't misinformation. You may help speed up a few people in their early stages of discovery, but they were most likely going to end up at the truth eventually. The people who are spreading the misinformation aren't going to pay attention, and they won't care when someone who did watch the debate tries to rebut their talking points - again, they'll either shout them down, Gish Gallop away, or ignore it.

2. Many topics really aren't debatable. Quite often, the information is just wrong or is based on a misinterpretation of the data. However, that can still require a complex understanding of the topic to rebut (and potentially to understand the rebuttal)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The problem with this is people aren’t going to pay attention for long enough to see the full rebuttal. As long as the misinformation is intuitive or self-serving enough, people are going to settle for it over the complex and nuanced rebuttal.

It's not perfect, but it's better than simply silencing people.

I don't know about you, but I'm not necessarily keen on the notion that a bunch of sensitive young people are going to dictate what's "safe" for me to hear based on their own comfort level. I can make that decision for myself.

Same way I felt when there were congressional hearings pertaining to "naughty words in music". I'm a big boy, I can decide what kind of music I want to listen to.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I feel like you're presenting an overly idealized view of debate as it occurs in present society. Surely you've experienced - or at least witnessed - such "debates" here on CF, where one party spouts some misinterpreted or just plain wrong information, another party crafts an insightful rebuttal demonstrating exactly how that information is incorrect, and the original poster just says "lol, no" or "that's wrong because I say it is" or "forget the 10 million experts who agree with you, I'm going to trust the ten who agree with me".

The real issue is a lack of intellectual curiosity and attention span - people see something shared on social media or are told something by their favorite newscaster/pundit/youtube personality and assume that it must be true. They then work from that assumption and seek out information that supports it rather than trying to verify the information. They also spread the misinformation to their friends and family - or on sites like CF - "secure" in the knowledge that they are correct. Any objections are shouted down, Gish Galloped, or just straight-up ignored.

Sure, you could have two experts debate the issue, but that's not going to accomplish anything meaningful for a couple reasons:
1. The audience for the debate is going to primarily be people who have that intellectual curiosity and have (most likely) already determined what is and isn't misinformation. You may help speed up a few people in their early stages of discovery, but they were most likely going to end up at the truth eventually. The people who are spreading the misinformation aren't going to pay attention, and they won't care when someone who did watch the debate tries to rebut their talking points - again, they'll either shout them down, Gish Gallop away, or ignore it.

2. Many topics really aren't debatable. Quite often, the information is just wrong or is based on a misinterpretation of the data. However, that can still require a complex understanding of the topic to rebut (and potentially to understand the rebuttal)

Well obviously we've all experienced that...but what does silencing the opposition accomplish?

Even if we want to take a pessimistic view and say that only 5% of people are swayed by reason and valid intellectual rebuttals and the other 95% stay set in their ways and think of reasons to dodge the valid info. For that 95%, does silencing the people they like convert any of them over to the "good side"?

As if they're going to say "Well, shucks, they blocked Charlie Kirk, I guess I'll listen to progressives and embrace their ideas now"?

To your second bullet point, I would say any topic is debatable in a sense that people can disagree on something, if there's a strong enough consensus on the right answer, their choices are to change their position or look stupid. Some people will still opt for the latter, but the people in that category aren't going to swayed by their favorite pundits being silenced either...if anything it may even strengthen their resolve and feed their conspiracy theories.

 

[gaara4158]

But that's where legislative process comes into play.

I can't think of any positive meaningful changes that has happened on a particular issue via "shutting out the other side from public discourse"

It's always either been the organic process of changing hearts & minds, or via a legislative process.

For instance, on the topic of gay rights, if they had relied on the process of trying to silence opposers as their means of achieving getting equal rights, they'd still be waiting for marriage and employment rights. They tried reason first, when that failed, they made a legal case. At no point in the process did they say "people who oppose gay rights shouldn't be allowed to be heard".

How do you get legislative bodies to rule in your favor when no one has the time or attention span to realize you’re in the right? Wouldn’t that require some form of authoritarianism? It certainly wouldn’t happen democratically. Some people don’t have 700 years to wait for the culture to turn around on the issue of equal rights.

It's not perfect, but it's better than simply silencing people.

I don't know about you, but I'm not necessarily keen on the notion that a bunch of sensitive young people are going to dictate what's "safe" for me to hear based on their own comfort level. I can make that decision for myself.

Same way I felt when there were congressional hearings pertaining to "naughty words in music". I'm a big boy, I can decide what kind of music I want to listen to.

Why does free speech always seem to revolve around the right to offend people? “Sure, it’s wrong, but why can’t I say it?” My brother, why do you *need* to say it?

On a serious note, I am not in favor of a high level of censorship. I think it’s necessary in cases where the would-be speaker is advocating for the removal of human rights from different groups of people. Absolute tolerance leaves itself open to takeover by the intolerant.

 

[lismore]

"Talking about overweight or disabled people"? You mean ridiculing people? Since when is that a Christian value?

Sadly since some Christians started listening more to celebrity speakers than to the words of Jesus and the other scriptures. God Bless

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How do you get legislative bodies to rule in your favor when no one has the time or attention span to realize you’re in the right? Wouldn’t that require some form of authoritarianism? It certainly wouldn’t happen democratically. Some people don’t have 700 years to wait for the culture to turn around on the issue of equal rights.

They get it on the radar via the judicial system.

I'd also suggest that the organic process helps produce a better outcome even if it take a little longer.

The example I'd use in employment discrimination. Take these two scenarios:
A) Telling employer Jim "you're not allowed to say/do XYZ" tomorrow
B) Employer Doug having a change of heart over 5-10 years and realizing that he was wrong and now having a sincere respect for people

People in the marginalized group are going to have a better long-term experience working for Doug, as to where Jim's only doing it begrudgingly and therefore, the person working for him still probably doesn't have a great work life.


And I don't think the waiting period is as long for that process once it is on the radar. Take, for instance, this factoid:

You're more likely to find a republican who respects marriage equality in 2022, than you would've been to find a democrat who supported it in 2004.

Things progress quicker than people give it credit for.

Why does free speech always seem to revolve around the right to offend people? “Sure, it’s wrong, but why can’t I say it?” My brother, why do you *need* to say it?

On a serious note, I am not in favor of a high level of censorship. I think it’s necessary in cases where the would-be speaker is advocating for the removal of human rights from different groups of people. Absolute tolerance leaves itself open to takeover by the intolerant.

It think it's started revolving around that, because "that's offensive" or "that's problematic" has become the default answer of a lot of the folks trying to shut down speech. The wider the "that's offensive" net that gets cast becomes, the more and more people are going to build a defense specific to that talking point.

As an analogy, if we were debating food, and I was trying to pass rules stating that you shouldn't be allowed to have certain foods because "they're bad for you"... as time goes on, if I start using the "it's bad for you" justification for everything (even things that would be heavily subjective and opinion-based), eventually your defense move away from the micro "no, here's the reason why I think this specific food is okay", into the more macro defense of "well, I should be allowed to still eat foods that are bad for me, if you don't like it, you don't have to eat it".

It may, perhaps, be easier if there were public consensus on what truly hurtful speech/expression was, but I don't think we'll have that as a society. It's always been somewhat subjective, but over the past 10 years it's gotten really subjective. It went from 90%+ of people having large agreement on "deeply offensive", and it included things like certain slurs and calls for violence, to where we're at now where there's a million different "microaggressions" people have defined (like not using a pronoun that someone made up 6 years ago, or celebrating Columbus day), and non-violent speech being called "a form of violence" because of how someone else could hypothetically interpret it.

 

[Larniavc]

However, they have tons of taboos from being unable to joke around about minorities even more extreme to being unable of talking about overweight people or disabled people.

I don't get it: you WANT to able to punch down?

 

[gaara4158]

They get it on the radar via the judicial system.

I'd also suggest that the organic process helps produce a better outcome even if it take a little longer.

The example I'd use in employment discrimination. Take these two scenarios:
A) Telling employer Jim "you're not allowed to say/do XYZ" tomorrow
B) Employer Doug having a change of heart over 5-10 years and realizing that he was wrong and now having a sincere respect for people

People in the marginalized group are going to have a better long-term experience working for Doug, as to where Jim's only doing it begrudgingly and therefore, the person working for him still probably doesn't have a great work life.


And I don't think the waiting period is as long for that process once it is on the radar. Take, for instance, this factoid:

I think you’ve got it backwards here. Democrats were always ahead of Republicans in terms of supporting gay marriage, but Obama didn’t make it federally recognized until public support reached 51%. The law followed the public, not the other way around. Sometimes the issue is so time-sensitive that it literally can’t wait for public support, yet so complex and inconvenient that few laypeople actually understand it, such as climate change, election interference, and global pandemics. Predictably, the measures in place to mitigate the spread of misinformation surrounding these hazards have been labeled authoritarian and censorious.

It think it's started revolving around that, because "that's offensive" or "that's problematic" has become the default answer of a lot of the folks trying to shut down speech. The wider the "that's offensive" net that gets cast becomes, the more and more people are going to build a defense specific to that talking point.

Offensive and problematic speech draws complaints and opposition, but typically the outcry isn’t to make such speech illegal. It’s usually a call for the platform’s host to stop hosting that kind of speech, particularly in the interest of keeping the platform’s brand ad-friendly and user-friendly. There’s a difference between government censorship and private companies making branding decisions.

It may, perhaps, be easier if there were public consensus on what truly hurtful speech/expression was, but I don't think we'll have that as a society. It's always been somewhat subjective, but over the past 10 years it's gotten really subjective. It went from 90%+ of people having large agreement on "deeply offensive", and it included things like certain slurs and calls for violence, to where we're at now where there's a million different "microaggressions" people have defined (like not using a pronoun that someone made up 6 years ago, or celebrating Columbus day), and non-violent speech being called "a form of violence" because of how someone else could hypothetically interpret it.

I’ve seen the complaints you’re talking about, and the calls to action are at the speakers to stop saying these things, not at governments to make that sort of speech illegal. People telling you to stop saying what you’re saying isn’t a violation of free speech, it’s the free exercise of theirs.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think you’ve got it backwards here. Democrats were always ahead of Republicans in terms of supporting gay marriage, but Obama didn’t make it federally recognized until public support reached 51%.

I wasn't trying to suggest that "The GOP is actually the party that's most looking out for the gay community of the two parties", it was just a point of context to show how quickly societal attitudes can change on a topic.

The GOP (the party that's perceived as the anti-gay party), went from <20% support to over 55% in a matter of under two decades.

Offensive and problematic speech draws complaints and opposition, but typically the outcry isn’t to make such speech illegal. It’s usually a call for the platform’s host to stop hosting that kind of speech, particularly in the interest of keeping the platform’s brand ad-friendly and user-friendly.

Something doesn't have to be made illegal in order to for it to tread the line of speech suppression.

I’ve seen the complaints you’re talking about, and the calls to action are at the speakers to stop saying these things, not at governments to make that sort of speech illegal. People telling you to stop saying what you’re saying isn’t a violation of free speech, it’s the free exercise of theirs.

To elaborate on my previous sentence, social media companies being as big and influential as they are can amount to boxing someone out of the ability to convey their position (especially in the political realm)

When a company builds a critical mass so large that it becomes the primary vehicle by which voters are informed of issues (and discuss them) and how candidates communicate with potential voters, and then based on the whims of the political preferences of the people working there, they adjust the TOS to heavily favor one side by making the other side's positions "against the rules to convey", it's basically pulling the rug out from under people.

Imagine if it were the other way around, and Twitter/FB were ran by conservatives, then in the 10th year (after it was already the primary vehicle for speech), the people running the companies made it against the TOS to promote universal healthcare or gun reforms...the Democrats would have a valid gripe that they're getting sabotaged.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well obviously we've all experienced that...but what does silencing the opposition accomplish?

Even if we want to take a pessimistic view and say that only 5% of people are swayed by reason and valid intellectual rebuttals and the other 95% stay set in their ways and think of reasons to dodge the valid info. For that 95%, does silencing the people they like convert any of them over to the "good side"?

It helps stop the spread of false information. There's not much you can do about that 95% who are set in their ways, but you can reduce the chances that future generations will follow in their footsteps. If you accept that a large portion of your population will believe whatever they're told as long as the right person says it, then you need to be careful of what you allow people to say. The only true solution to the problem is to fix the lack of critical thinking, but that takes time.

I really don't like it, but that seems to be our reality right now. It's not a good place to be, and making sure that it doesn't get taken too far will be a very tricky balancing act that will almost certainly fail many times, but if we continue on the current course, I can't see things ending well.

To your second bullet point, I would say any topic is debatable in a sense that people can disagree on something, if there's a strong enough consensus on the right answer, their choices are to change their position or look stupid. Some people will still opt for the latter, but the people in that category aren't going to swayed by their favorite pundits being silenced either...if anything it may even strengthen their resolve and feed their conspiracy theories.

People can disagree on anything, but that doesn't automatically equate to debate. Not all opinions are created equal. Sure, you can do a debate class exercise on the result of x=2+2, but that's intended as a rhetorical teaching tool - anyone who actually believes that x does not equal 4 is either an idiot or completely delusional. In either case, trying to debate with the person would be a waste of everyone's time.

 

[gaara4158]

I wasn't trying to suggest that "The GOP is actually the party that's most looking out for the gay community of the two parties", it was just a point of context to show how quickly societal attitudes can change on a topic.

The GOP (the party that's perceived as the anti-gay party), went from <20% support to over 55% in a matter of under two decades.

I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. My point was that the legislation followed public sentiment, it didn’t lead it.

Something doesn't have to be made illegal in order to for it to tread the line of speech suppression.

Then what is it exactly you’re arguing for? Should media companies be forced to host all speech, bar-none? No algorithms to guide what type of content users see more or less of? This isn’t even action by the left we’re talking about anymore, it’s pure capitalism.

To elaborate on my previous sentence, social media companies being as big and influential as they are can amount to boxing someone out of the ability to convey their position (especially in the political realm)

When a company builds a critical mass so large that it becomes the primary vehicle by which voters are informed of issues (and discuss them) and how candidates communicate with potential voters, and then based on the whims of the political preferences of the people working there, they adjust the TOS to heavily favor one side by making the other side's positions "against the rules to convey", it's basically pulling the rug out from under people.

Imagine if it were the other way around, and Twitter/FB were ran by conservatives, then in the 10th year (after it was already the primary vehicle for speech), the people running the companies made it against the TOS to promote universal healthcare or gun reforms...the Democrats would have a valid gripe that they're getting sabotaged.

It sounds like you’re arguing for regulations that directly interfere with the free speech of some entities in favor of others, who happen to be saying awful things no one wants to hear. Why?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then what is it exactly you’re arguing for? Should media companies be forced to host all speech, bar-none? No algorithms to guide what type of content users see more or less of? This isn’t even action by the left we’re talking about anymore, it’s pure capitalism.

I think there's room for regulations once companies reach a certain level of size and influence and become de factor "state actors" (which I'd argue they are)

It sounds like you’re arguing for regulations that directly interfere with the free speech of some entities in favor of others, who happen to be saying awful things no one wants to hear. Why?

Actually, it's not interfering with speech, it's the prevention of Group A from silencing Person B... Group A having the ability to make person B's position "against the rules" has nothing to do with Group A's speech.

Free speech is a negative right, in that, Bob doesn't have to give up his speech in order for Dave to have is (and vice versa) as speech isn't a "finite resource"

And in all likelihood, had the big tech social media platforms had limited their definition of "awful things that are unspeakable" to reasonable confines, nobody would've balked at it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It helps stop the spread of false information. There's not much you can do about that 95% who are set in their ways, but you can reduce the chances that future generations will follow in their footsteps. If you accept that a large portion of your population will believe whatever they're told as long as the right person says it, then you need to be careful of what you allow people to say. The only true solution to the problem is to fix the lack of critical thinking, but that takes time.

I really don't like it, but that seems to be our reality right now. It's not a good place to be, and making sure that it doesn't get taken too far will be a very tricky balancing act that will almost certainly fail many times, but if we continue on the current course, I can't see things ending well.

Perhaps if the people making the final call on what constitutes "false information" had a better track record, there'd be more confidence in the process.

But if we rewind a few months (to a subject that many people have let go to the wayside for the time being)

Remember there being calls by the government to "crack down" on Joe Rogan's podcast? It was because he had 2 people on who suggested that perhaps there were some risks regarding heart inflammation (specifically in younger males) and could cause changes in menstrual cycles.

Both of those guests lost their Twitter profiles for "spreading misinformation" because even uttering those two things on a podcast was labelled as "creating vaccine hesitancy"

Fast forward to now, NBC and other mainstream outlets are running articles about it.

Menstrual changes after Covid vaccines may be far more common than previously known

A study found that 42% of people with regular menstrual cycles said they bled more heavily than usual after their Covid vaccination.

www.nbcnews.com

Covid vaccine trials didn't monitor menstrual changes. Researchers say it's part of a bigger problem.

Collecting data about menstruation could have prevented confusion and distress and assuaged misguided fears about Covid vaccines, they said.

www.nbcnews.com

Are there long-term myocarditis risks after Covid vaccination?

Both Pfizer and Moderna are launching clinical trials to track health issues — if any — in the years following a diagnosis of vaccine-associated heart problems in teens and young adults.

www.nbcnews.com

So was Twitter wrong to deplatform Malone and McCullough for merely talking about it & the government wrong to pressure spotify to "reign in" Rogan? Or, were they correct in their approach, and thus, NBC's creating vaccine hesitancy now, and as a result, should have their presence on Twitter and Facebook suspended?


Now, for the record, I was (and still am) pro-vaccine, and said then like I say now, the benefits far outweigh the risks. However, the mere acknowledgement of the risks equated to people getting removed from the "town square", and a few months later, now mainstream outlets are talking about the same things and not facing any repercussions from doing so.


The problem of anti-vaxxers exaggerating the risks and misusing VAERS isn't solved by over-correction in the other direction, and going after people for merely saying "hey, like any other medical intervention, it's not 100% risk-free"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Perhaps if the people making the final call on what constitutes "false information" had a better track record, there'd be more confidence in the process.

As I said - I don't like it, it's not a good place to be, and it's going to go wrong at times. From where I sit though, the alternative is worse.

So was Twitter wrong to deplatform Malone and McCullough for merely talking about it & the government wrong to pressure spotify to "reign in" Rogan? Or, were they correct in their approach, and thus, NBC's creating vaccine hesitancy now, and as a result, should have their presence on Twitter and Facebook suspended?

That would depend on the presentation and what they had to back up their position. I haven't listened to that podcast, so I can't give an opinion. In general, I do think that people overreacted in trying to silence anything that even remotely questioned whether the COVID vaccines were safe/effective, but there were good reasons for it. A lot of the theories were speculative or based on limited data - for example, with myocarditis, at this point, it appears to be a very rare side effect and the majority of the very few cases have fully recovered (see the article that you shared). At the time that Joe Rogan's podcast aired, I believe the data was limited to a few reports of patients developing myocarditis following the vaccine. Without solid information on the frequency or severity of the cases, it would be irresponsible to share that information with the general public, as they are not equipped with the knowledge to analyze the information and determine the actual risk. No one was at that point, but it was something for doctors and medical professionals to keep an eye on so that more data could be gathered.

The availability of information today via the internet is both a blessing and a curse - you can find so much data freely floating around, but on the flipside, most people simply don't have the skills and knowledge needed to properly understand and use that data

Now, for the record, I was (and still am) pro-vaccine, and said then like I say now, the benefits far outweigh the risks. However, the mere acknowledgement of the risks equated to people getting removed from the "town square", and a few months later, now mainstream outlets are talking about the same things and not facing any repercussions from doing so.

Again, it's about presentation and the existence of peer-reviewed research to support the observations. Now, studies are starting to be released and other studies are being announced, at which point there are actual determinations that can be shared with the public rather than simply raw data.

The problem of anti-vaxxers exaggerating the risks and misusing VAERS isn't solved by over-correction in the other direction, and going after people for merely saying "hey, like any other medical intervention, it's not 100% risk-free"

How would you solve it then? So far, all you've offered is to have people debate controversial topics publicly, which I think we agreed would be ineffective in our current society.

 

[gaara4158]

I think there's room for regulations once companies reach a certain level of size and influence and become de factor "state actors" (which I'd argue they are)

Actually, it's not interfering with speech, it's the prevention of Group A from silencing Person B... Group A having the ability to make person B's position "against the rules" has nothing to do with Group A's speech.

Free speech is a negative right, in that, Bob doesn't have to give up his speech in order for Dave to have is (and vice versa) as speech isn't a "finite resource"

And in all likelihood, had the big tech social media platforms had limited their definition of "awful things that are unspeakable" to reasonable confines, nobody would've balked at it.

If we are going to argue that refusing someone service is in effect “silencing” them, you’re not talking about negative rights anymore. This is a positive right to have unmoderated free use of a private service. Further, demanding that a social media company stop moderating their content and tuning their algorithm in the way that they see fit - when doing it their way is what got them to be so influential in the first place - will only weaken the platform itself, not strengthen the “silenced” voices.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If we are going to argue that refusing someone service is in effect “silencing” them, you’re not talking about negative rights anymore. This is a positive right to have unmoderated free use of a private service. Further, demanding that a social media company stop moderating their content and tuning their algorithm in the way that they see fit - when doing it their way is what got them to be so influential in the first place - will only weaken the platform itself, not strengthen the “silenced” voices.

If it were a truly private service with no large public implications, then we'd agree. A store doesn't have to let me in if I'm wearing a shirt the owner finds offensive. However, if that store was "the only store in town", or that store had become so large that the federal government basically deputized them in helping to address public issues that would normally be the function of government, then that entity should have some of the constraints required of a "State Actor"

State action - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As I said - I don't like it, it's not a good place to be, and it's going to go wrong at times. From where I sit though, the alternative is worse.


That would depend on the presentation and what they had to back up their position. I haven't listened to that podcast, so I can't give an opinion. In general, I do think that people overreacted in trying to silence anything that even remotely questioned whether the COVID vaccines were safe/effective, but there were good reasons for it. A lot of the theories were speculative or based on limited data - for example, with myocarditis, at this point, it appears to be a very rare side effect and the majority of the very few cases have fully recovered (see the article that you shared). At the time that Joe Rogan's podcast aired, I believe the data was limited to a few reports of patients developing myocarditis following the vaccine. Without solid information on the frequency or severity of the cases, it would be irresponsible to share that information with the general public, as they are not equipped with the knowledge to analyze the information and determine the actual risk. No one was at that point, but it was something for doctors and medical professionals to keep an eye on so that more data could be gathered.

The availability of information today via the internet is both a blessing and a curse - you can find so much data freely floating around, but on the flipside, most people simply don't have the skills and knowledge needed to properly understand and use that data


Again, it's about presentation and the existence of peer-reviewed research to support the observations. Now, studies are starting to be released and other studies are being announced, at which point there are actual determinations that can be shared with the public rather than simply raw data.


How would you solve it then? So far, all you've offered is to have people debate controversial topics publicly, which I think we agreed would be ineffective in our current society.

I think we're maybe looking at it from two different perspectives.

In that, I don't see social media as the vehicle by which "societal problems should be solved". Its original intention was to be a place communicate with friends and some strangers. The government turned those platforms into "public" when they started compelling the heads of those companies to put rules in place that they wanted.

And as you noted, the internet if full of information, good and bad, so silencing some people on a social media platform isn't really counteracting the fact that people could simply find all those same sentiments on a search engine if they were really seeking it out.

I would say that evidence of the "social media filtering" approach being inadequate/ineffective was the fact that after they silenced someone, it seemed to make them more famous, and seemingly strengthened the resolve of people who would've been inclined to follow them.

 

[gaara4158]

If it were a truly private service with no large public implications, then we'd agree. A store doesn't have to let me in if I'm wearing a shirt the owner finds offensive. However, if that store was "the only store in town", or that store had become so large that the federal government basically deputized them in helping to address public issues that would normally be the function of government, then that entity should have some of the constraints required of a "State Actor"

State action - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That’s one school of thought, but again, taking moderation and algorithms away from social media monoliths would change them into something they’re not. We’re seeing in real-time what happens to Twitter when there’s no one at the wheel. All this, over the right to call someone slurs? Why though?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I think we're maybe looking at it from two different perspectives.

In that, I don't see social media as the vehicle by which "societal problems should be solved". Its original intention was to be a place communicate with friends and some strangers. The government turned those platforms into "public" when they started compelling the heads of those companies to put rules in place that they wanted.

That may have been the original intent of social media back in the Myspace/Geocities era of the early 2000s, but it hasn't been that way for a long time now. It's where the majority of Americans go to get their news, where governments make official announcements (see articles about how some government agencies were scrambling for alternatives when it looked like Twitter might go under last week), etc. All of that predates COVID or even the 2016 election.

And I don't think that the government "compelled" Facebook or Twitter to do anything. They did ask that those companies take action to limit the spread of misinformation, but I don't recall any threats of consequences - ultimately, there's not a whole lot that the government can do to companies on that scale.

And as you noted, the internet if full of information, good and bad, so silencing some people on a social media platform isn't really counteracting the fact that people could simply find all those same sentiments on a search engine if they were really seeking it out.

If you remove it from the realm where people can consume it passively, it slows the spread dramatically as a positive action is required. You have to know what you're looking for.

For example, if you decide to search for - say - "dangers of COVID vaccine" you're likely to get a range of articles presenting various views, allowing you to read them and draw your own conclusions - which you're more likely to do because you're (apparently) actually interested in learning about the topic, given that you made a conscious decision to search for it. On the other hand, if you scroll past a headline in your Facebook feed that says "COVID vaccine causes heart disease!", you're both unlikely to actually read the article, and more likely to simply accept that headline as true - especially if it was shared by someone that you trust already.

I would say that evidence of the "social media filtering" approach being inadequate/ineffective was the fact that after they silenced someone, it seemed to make them more famous, and seemingly strengthened the resolve of people who would've been inclined to follow them.

Yes, the martyr paradox is an issue.

But again, I'm not seeing any alternative solutions proposed.