> 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.
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.