> If you don't believe it's a weapon, you're wrong. If you don't believe weaponized misinformation is dangerous, look at the regimes it's toppled. And if you think the "American spirit," or somesuch nonsense, makes us immune, I hope we won't have to find out.
I don't see anyone here arguing those points, so I think this is a bit of a strawman.
> It's not about banning disagreement. It's not even about opinions. It's about combating weaponized misinformation.
The argument, as I see it, is that "weaponized misinformation" and "disagreement" are not cleanly separable categories, and than anyone with the power to ban the former will almost certainly use it to ban the latter.
The marketplace of ideas works only insofar as everyone involved operates with good faith. Weaponized misinformation is the opposite of that: expressing what appears to be an opinion, but is actually a manipulation tactic. Look in particular for arguments that appeal to emotion (especially anger), nationalism, and in-group/out-group. The fascists understood, and still understand, these strategies.
If you can't tell the difference between a genuine opinion and a misinformation tactic, you are ill prepared to participate in today's media environment.
That is frankly naive. Many earnest people repeat dangerous lies, and wicked people are more that willing to use the truth, especially if it is an uncomfortable truth that is important but overlooked by polite society.
> If you can't tell the difference between a genuine opinion and a misinformation tactic, you are ill prepared to participate in today's media environment.
On the contrary, I can do a much better job at the scale I operate at than YouTube can do at the scale it operates at.
Furthermore, I take the very liberal view that I have both the right and the responsibility to make up my own mind about others' speech. I hold in low regard those who try to take that from me.
> That is frankly naive. Many earnest people repeat dangerous lies, and wicked people are more that willing to use the truth, especially if it is an uncomfortable truth that is important but overlooked by polite society.
Correct. That's why I said the difference is intent. You have not contradicted that.
> On the contrary, I can do a much better job at the scale I operate at than YouTube can do at the scale it operates at.
Congratulations. I'm not concerned with weaponized disinformation in your social circle.
> Furthermore, I take the very liberal view that I have both the right and the responsibility to make up my own mind about others' speech. I hold in low regard those who try to take that from me.
Good for you. If everyone were as intelligent and enlightened as you are, then the world would operate a lot more smoothly.
> Correct. That's why I said the difference is intent. You have not contradicted that.
You are mistaken. The earnest falsehood can cause great damage, and the truth - even when spoken by someone of ill intent - is still important. Your standard of intent is simply not sufficient.
So called "hateful" people are sometimes necessary to break the stranglehold bad ideas have on society. Socrates was executed for "corrupting the youth".
> Congratulations. I'm not concerned with weaponized disinformation in your social circle.
The point here is that YouTube (or any tech platform) is not in a position to implement any reasonable standard at scale. Even if your standard of intent were reasonable (it's not) intent doesn't just vary between people, intent can vary within a person over the course of a single conversation! And a person's intent can also be mixed. There is no way any of these platforms can capture that level of nuance in human social interaction.
> Good for you. If everyone were as intelligent and enlightened as you are, then the world would operate a lot more smoothly.
True, but beside the point.
I want to be very clear about this. If you value democracy in any way, you must support the right for everyone to make up their own mind. That is because, unless you have that right, you do not have a democracy. All you have is the oligarchy of the gatekeepers of acceptable opinion.
> The earnest falsehood can cause great damage, and the truth - even when spoken by someone of ill intent - is still important.
I didn't say that earnest falsehoods can't cause damage, I merely said that it's not a weapon. Someone who is weaponizing information to achieve their own ends definitely knows what they're doing. And obviously, speaking the truth, regardless of intent, is not a case of misinformation.
To draw an analogy: I'm not saying we should outlaw guns. I'm saying we should outlaw murder. The problem is not the spread of opinions the problem is the intentional use of insincerely held opinions to cause damage.
I support the right for everyone to make up their own mind, which is exactly why I oppose weaponized misinformation. I don't even know what it would mean to oppose the right for everyone to make up their own mind. Reminds of the caps from the Tripod Trilogy.
The power of those with great wealth to influence others should not be underestimated. We're not immune. If you want to live in a society where everyone makes up their own mind, don't let them join a cult.
I don't see anyone here arguing those points, so I think this is a bit of a strawman.
> It's not about banning disagreement. It's not even about opinions. It's about combating weaponized misinformation.
The argument, as I see it, is that "weaponized misinformation" and "disagreement" are not cleanly separable categories, and than anyone with the power to ban the former will almost certainly use it to ban the latter.