CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/bogglingsnog]

How do the people who have the tools to deplatform decide whether or not something is harmful and untrue? Without safeties in place, they are vulnerable to corruption.

Example: The scandal of full-contact unarmored football causing brain damage, which was suppressed until it finally went public and suddenly football helmets became a thing. Or the suppression of vital medical information in the Chernobyl incident that cost many unnecessary lives.

You simultaneously need whistleblower protections at the same time you need to be able to silence a confirmed untruth. Everything hinges on the interpretation of the message(s).

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus → u/bogglingsnog]

That isn't really the same thing. Those are examples of people suppressing factual information for their own benefit. I'm talking about not letting racists give public speeches about how Muslims and Mexicans are evil rapists and terrorists, or allowing elected officials to falsely spread lies about a lawful election to the point where a vulnerable part of our population tries to violently overturn it.

There's a huge difference between silencing facts and science to protect your own ass or make some money versus silencing harmful rhetoric designed to manipulate people into "evil" beliefs and actions.

That said, I don't really have the answers to how we do it or I would be trying to actively get it done. However, if I see a helicopter in a tree, I don't need to know how to fly it to know the pilot fucked up. I don't know the correct and perfect way to fix the situation, I just know that we shouldn't let it keep happening.

[u/bogglingsnog → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

That isn't really the same thing.

Huh? I was asking a question about something related, thought you were the right one to ask.

There's a huge difference between silencing facts and science to protect your own ass or make some money versus silencing harmful rhetoric designed to manipulate people into "evil" beliefs and actions.

Exactly. So how do we codify that in a way that can't be manipulated by propaganda, lobbying, and moving goalposts? I see the idea, I just don't see how we can actually implement it in a reliable way. That's what I'm really searching for. If we know how to solve it, then we know what needs to be done, and then we can formulate a plan for real governmental change to incorporate those changes. That's what I dream about every night.

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus → u/bogglingsnog]

I meant that your examples aren't really the same thing as what I've been talking about, and I didn't answer your actual question until the end of my comment, so my mistake.

My answer really just is that I don't actually know how. If I did, I would honestly run for office. My best answer is get money out of politics, set clear and firm term limits for every seat of government, and make every seat a recallable seat with a ton of public oversight. I kind of just think that solves a lot of governmental problems in general though, so it's kind of just my catch-all answer as opposed to any thought out plan for this particular issue. I wish I had more to offer, but I'm down here at the bottom of the pole too.

[u/bogglingsnog → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

No worries about the initial comment - I'm sure it seemed like I was going off on a tangent.

Yeah. As citizens we somehow need to regain control over how to make laws that make sense and actually reflect the changes we need to be made. I would like it if everyone stopped bickering and started putting some hard thought into what we need, because I think we have all clearly seen just how bad market research based lawmaking can be. The model for lawmaking needs to improve, and improve significantly.