[tsjackson]

I'm naturally sympathetic to the sentiment, but this post fails to acknowledge, much less address, the major societal changes that have precipitated our current situation. Censorship is a reaction to our society's increasing inability to combat misinformation. Over the last 20 years, a huge, extremely influential right wing media establishment has sprung up. It has clearly demonstrated its ability to convince millions of people of things that are factually untrue, with less logic than repetition. (Ask Barack Obama, the Kenyan Muslim, about the utility of reasoning). I am worried about someone who makes an argument that gay people are evil, because it probably now means that a group of commentators have adopted that simple statement as a talking point. Furthermore, they've tacked on preposterous arguments, logical fallacies, and agreed to engage in Ad Hominem warfare against anyone who argues differently. It's been an extremely effective formula for persuading a huge portion, if not most of our society, into believing falsehoods.

Unfortunately, the John Stuart Mill marketplace of ideas is failing to distribute value as obviously as our economic marketplaces. The openness of communication made possible via technology has turned us all into Sophists. Efforts to confront and address this reality is peripheral at best. As long as this is true, censorship will be an appealing option to keep bad ideas from spreading. Is censorship worth the cost? I don't know, but I'd lean toward saying yes, while fully acknowledging that the cost is huge.

[jerf]

You're not refuting his point... you're demonstrating it.

[tsjackson]

The main thrust of the argument seems to be that we should do our best to stop censorship. I'm arguing that we probably shouldn't. Our society is not really equipped to handle the free exchange of ideas at this point.

[staunch]

Because some large percentage of people are filled with cynicism and pessimism?

Every objective measure of society is better today than at any time in the past, and yet we have people calling for curtailing a core American value due to a supposed social emergency. These demoralized people need a hard reality check because there's nothing fact-based about the way they think or behave.

There are orders of magnitude more educated people in the world today than ever before. Development of technology is rapidly accelerating. The idea that we can't solve our problems without sacrificing our souls is just pathetic and historically un-American.

[tsjackson]

Techno-optimist drivel is at least as unsavory as the overly sensitive, anti-technological kneejerk reactions that this article is lamenting. It's absurd to write off real problems with technology because tech does good things as well.

I am having trouble following your jump from shutting down trolls to sacrificing our souls. If you think the loudest person should get a platform, I encourage you to spend some more time in (non-HN) comment sections.

[staunch]

Techno-optimists created the modern world...

You say you want to shutdown "trolls" but you surely also want to modify the definition of troll on an on-going basis.

The pessimists think they can't win on ideas alone so they resort to using force against the "trolls" to ensure victory. Harassing, deplatforming, doxing, getting them fired, boycotting, etc.

The optimists (see: MLK Jr.) know humans are pretty great and, given sufficient time and information, the good ideas will win eventually.

If you actually care about your society you should be engaging "trolls" and trying to understand them. And you should be trying to convince them they're wrong, if you can. And if you can't, you should look to others that can.

[jerf]

Let me be blunt: I don't trust you enough to make that decision.

Let me be even more blunt: I suspect what you really mean is simply that people who disagree with you should be shut up.

Let me be a bit philosophical: Unless you are so arrogant as to believe that you are right about everything right now, the set of people you believe should shut up includes both your future and past self.

Perhaps you should accord to others the rights you are so anxious to claim for yourself.

[tsjackson]

There is nothing in my statement that suggests that every viewpoint that disagrees with my own should be censored. What I'm arguing is that the world has gotten a WHOLE lot more complex when it comes to mapping peoples' understanding of the world. The signal to noise ratio has turned upside down, and society as a whole has become more volatile as a result. We have to take the threats of this new reality very seriously and avoid broad generalizations.

I think that we can collectively come to a reasonable agreement about what should and should not pass as discourse vs. plain trollery. If someone is parroting "facts" about Barack Obama's secret Kenyan birth and closed door Muslim religion, all of which have been refuted, and cannot offer a standard of evidence that would be sufficient to change their mind, they aren't engaging in a debate, they are simply spreading a lie. That lie, and many others like it, have recently shown the ability to propagate propelled solely by regular repetition. Is censorship the only way to provide a pattern interrupt? I don't really know, but I do know that it is TERRIBLE for a democratic and free society to have huge portions of the population very certain about opinions that are totally, demonstrable false, not to mention that these same opinions also incline these people to be less tolerant, less trusting, and more aggressive. I don't think we should rule out some level of censorship, at least at the interpersonal level, for thoroughly refuted ideas. I'm not saying we should have government intervention, I'm just arguing that you should have every right to tell your angry, misinformed uncle to stop spreading lies at the dinner table.

On a personal level, my own standard is that you earn the right to have a discourse by being willing to let go of your viewpoint if it's refuted, in fact that's part of why you are entering into a conversation - to learn what you are wrong about. Strong beliefs, lightly held. The right to speak comes with a responsibility to engage honestly.