Clifton, I understand that it is significant that the government is, let’s say, “interfering” with the standard operation of a company that is a gatekeeper for free speech. I still don’t think that brings to mind Stalin and the Gulag.
After the Hilary’s emails mess, the media did not publish ill gotten information stolen from the Trump campaign. Is that a problem? Would it have been a problem if it wasn’t released because the government had requested it not be released? I believe some of this is just new and society hasn’t figured out how to handle it.
COVID was a disaster. Reporting on it was incomplete and only semi accurate. It showed just how bad our science education is in this country. Unfortunately, my choices affect you, and yours me so there was a vital public interests to be on the same page. The fact that Government and media did a truly awful job of doing that is a completely different, though clearly related, problem.
Same with the election. There are a lot of people who still believe absolutely ridiculous things about the 2020 election. It has caused a lot of societal strife and mistrust among our fellow citizens. Shouldn’t there be someone who has the ability to stop flagrant lies that are provably wrong and destructive from being spread? Even those huge lawsuits with enormous payouts on lies about voting machines have done little to change people’s minds… short of stopping the spread of unproven potential lies until the truth can be found what should we do?
We're mostly on the same page so I won't belabor the point other than to say that not many business executives want to get on the wrong side of the feds. They can make your life miserable and hurt your business. It's clear that Facebook buckled under to their pressure.
It's hyperbole to compare what Team Biden did to actions by Stalin, but their efforts to control the flow of information was still problematic and counter to the idea of free speech. It's clear, after the fact, that society would have been better off if we had known about the differences of opinion among credible scientists when policy decisions were being made.
The "demoting" of the NY Post article was problematic as well.
Clifton! You put your finger exactly on the problem. The powers that be decided scientists weren’t “credible” if they didn’t tow the party line, while allowing any half-baked comments of any old schmo as long as it didn’t contradict the party line. What we need is a better way to identify “credible” because it is hard. And someone can be credible on one subject and be talking nonsense on another. Maybe we need something like “peer review” for media, instead of algorithms that prefer engagement to accuracy…. That would be a big change.
Deciding who or what entity has the authority to determine truth v falsehood (and the authority to punish the transgression against official truth) is always - and will always be - *The Issue*. Considering for 30 seconds the possibility that "the other side" will have that authority should be sufficient for clear thinkers to determine the danger of allowing any centralized power such authority. Think of how stifling to creativity- and chilling to any productive dissent. I'm often shocked by how complacent John is in the face of facts revealed by Shellenberger, to name just one person. Power seeks to consolidate power. That's never good in any republic which claims to offer freedom from the tyranny of mobs OR minorities.
Clifton, I understand that it is significant that the government is, let’s say, “interfering” with the standard operation of a company that is a gatekeeper for free speech. I still don’t think that brings to mind Stalin and the Gulag.
After the Hilary’s emails mess, the media did not publish ill gotten information stolen from the Trump campaign. Is that a problem? Would it have been a problem if it wasn’t released because the government had requested it not be released? I believe some of this is just new and society hasn’t figured out how to handle it.
COVID was a disaster. Reporting on it was incomplete and only semi accurate. It showed just how bad our science education is in this country. Unfortunately, my choices affect you, and yours me so there was a vital public interests to be on the same page. The fact that Government and media did a truly awful job of doing that is a completely different, though clearly related, problem.
Same with the election. There are a lot of people who still believe absolutely ridiculous things about the 2020 election. It has caused a lot of societal strife and mistrust among our fellow citizens. Shouldn’t there be someone who has the ability to stop flagrant lies that are provably wrong and destructive from being spread? Even those huge lawsuits with enormous payouts on lies about voting machines have done little to change people’s minds… short of stopping the spread of unproven potential lies until the truth can be found what should we do?
Hi Amy,
We're mostly on the same page so I won't belabor the point other than to say that not many business executives want to get on the wrong side of the feds. They can make your life miserable and hurt your business. It's clear that Facebook buckled under to their pressure.
It's hyperbole to compare what Team Biden did to actions by Stalin, but their efforts to control the flow of information was still problematic and counter to the idea of free speech. It's clear, after the fact, that society would have been better off if we had known about the differences of opinion among credible scientists when policy decisions were being made.
The "demoting" of the NY Post article was problematic as well.
Clifton! You put your finger exactly on the problem. The powers that be decided scientists weren’t “credible” if they didn’t tow the party line, while allowing any half-baked comments of any old schmo as long as it didn’t contradict the party line. What we need is a better way to identify “credible” because it is hard. And someone can be credible on one subject and be talking nonsense on another. Maybe we need something like “peer review” for media, instead of algorithms that prefer engagement to accuracy…. That would be a big change.
Deciding who or what entity has the authority to determine truth v falsehood (and the authority to punish the transgression against official truth) is always - and will always be - *The Issue*. Considering for 30 seconds the possibility that "the other side" will have that authority should be sufficient for clear thinkers to determine the danger of allowing any centralized power such authority. Think of how stifling to creativity- and chilling to any productive dissent. I'm often shocked by how complacent John is in the face of facts revealed by Shellenberger, to name just one person. Power seeks to consolidate power. That's never good in any republic which claims to offer freedom from the tyranny of mobs OR minorities.