[Swizec]

I didn't say you have to protect them. I did say you might want to not spread ideas you disagree with.

It's one thing to debate with friends at a bar. It's another to retweet something to your 6,000 followers and adding "lol dumb". At least some of those followers will disregard your comment and just absorb the message.

Just like my maths professor in high school would say. I'd show you how most of you do this wrong, but then you're just going to remember the wrong way. Let me just show you how to do it right.

Then there's the argument that any signal of approval (share, comment, retweet, engage) tells algorithmic timelines that this message gets much engagement and sharing it to a broader audience.

A key tenet of human cognition is that we agree more with things we hear more often. You can convince people of pretty much anything through sheer bruteforce of Being Everywhere. Doesn't matter if those who share agree or disagree, just that they shared.

[tzahola]

>I did say you might want to not spread ideas you disagree with.

Well, I can imagine one would do this in abscence of any proper argument against said ideas. Maybe you should revisit whether these ideas have some merit to them or not?

[golemotron]

The sad thing is that this strategy doesn't even work. It's analogous to trying to fix prices in an economy. All that does is create black markets. You end up with bubbles, preference falsification and preference cascades of increasing severity due to the illiquidity.