[naasking]

> They should not be given a platform. At all.

They should have access to the same platforms that are accessible to the rest of the public, so long as their speech is not an incitement to violence.

Protest those ideas if you like, but living in a democratic society means battling with words and not censorship.

[mike00632]

Having a seat on Google's ethics board is not a platform accessible to the rest of the public.

[naasking]

Sure, but that's not what the other poster said. They said they shouldn't have a platform "at all". Meaning, "any platform", which is the point I disputed.

[tremon]

To be entirely clear, I said "be given". I said nothing about them arranging a platform for themselves.

[naasking]

Firstly, "arranging a platform for themselves" is the same as "being given a platform in exchange for goods and services (typically money)". If you're making this argument, then there's no distinction in what you describe. They're "given a platform" in exchange for services rendered as an AI ethics panel member.

Secondly, it's debatable whether they're even being "given a platform" in this case anyway, because their duties are specifically surrounding AI. Going off on an anti-trans rant or something would get them removed. Since that's the sort of platform you're presumably arguing against giving them, so there seems to be no conflict here.

Presumably, what you actually meant by "not giving them a platform" is that they shouldn't be given legitimacy or validation. I'm not sure I can agree that their presence accomplishes this. Some people give the pope some moral authority, but plenty enough people aren't swayed by his fancy hat, and his lofty moral status enables good discussions over what's truly ethical. Christian and Catholic engagement is and has been falling precipitously.