4 ms·
Why do you believe the right of bad-faith actors to load disinformation into the minds of the gullible is more important than the right of uninvolved third part
by bleepblorp 6y ago
Why do you believe the right of bad-faith actors to load disinformation into the minds of the gullible is more important than the right of uninvolved third parties to live?
It's one thing to spread disinformation that leads people to harm themselves (for example, by encouraging them to drink laundry detergent or bleach). It's quite another to spread disinformation that harms third parties. Third parties have no say in what disinformation the gullible choose to consume but they will be subject to the consequences of the gullible believing what they've been told.
Every polity that has something resembling a right to freedom of speech imposes limits on that speech when it can harm others. Libel, slander, and incitement are not generally tolerated. Restricting the spread of disinformation that increases the impact of a deadly pandemic is no different.
I do agree, however, that the final arbiter of what speech is acceptable should not rest with Youtube or any other private entity. This is a question for elected governments and the judiciary.
- DarknessFalls 6y agoWhat if disinformation leads to the gullible placing "bad-faith actors" in our elected governments and judiciary? Just imagine! We must hedge our bets and let disinformation be cut down wherever rational minds exist (for now).
- cannedslime 6y agoAnd whos to say that YOU are not the one falling for it, hook line and sinker? If you cant even get a second opinion anymore, whos to say? Is all talk of election fraud disinformation? Or only when your candidate wins? Honestly I think its dangerous, so many people downvote without even questioning their train of thought. Like zombies you chant "Gooooooooogle goooooood". Good thing I am not sustaining my body or mind on goodboy points from silicon valley freaks! All you guys are seriously not right in the head.
- cannedslime 6y agoAnd you don't think Libel and slander laws are sufficient? If someone says something obviously untruthful we already have the legal framework to deal with it. This is just a private company taking control of information. Who is to say that they arent the ones spreading misinformation themselves?