[Armisael16]

The last two sentences say that censorship is not a functional solution to the problem and that we need to find something better, so I’d say very definitely no.

I’m not the person you responded to, of course, but I don’t see how you could’ve read their post and thought they were advocating for inescapable censorship.

[mjfl]

"people are finding ways around it" was his main gripe with censorship.

[calinet6]

It's not a gripe, it's a reality. I have no horse in this race other than the systemic outcome.

Censorship (or official annotation, let's call it) was an attempt to curb the tribalism or put some controls on the spread of it; I'm certainly saying that it will not work.

I can't imagine alternative solutions at this time, but we need to. It will likely be some sort of system we can't yet imagine, and it will likely need to be at the societal level of mutual agreement. Think less of controlling speech, more "wow cars can kill people, we should probably agree to some rules around driving them around."

I expect things will get much worse before those types of systems are put in place.

[whimsicalism]

It is concerning that you have "no horse" in a race over whether there should be American censorship.

It's as if the centrists have thrown away liberalism, which makes no sense to me given that liberal values are immensely popular among the public.

[calinet6]

By saying I have no horse in the race, I'm saying that I'm trying to take an objective viewpoint on what is happening and what impact that has, not that I have no opinions or moral positions on the matter. Keep those separate.

Keep in mind also that censorship is a government matter: the government should not censor people; that's enshrined in the 1st amendment. But private platforms and companies have every right to design their communications systems the way they see fit, and I expect them to do so ethically with societal impact in mind.

I expect soon the government will need to enter into this race and take some wider action, but I don't know what that will be, nor how it will play with our constitution. It's going to be a wild ride as the psychological nuclear weapons we've created duke it out with the individual rights principles we've laid in stone hundreds of years ago. I can only hope we design some systemic solution that does not require that fight to take place.

And just to give an idea of the solution type I have in mind: right now the social network systems we have are optimized for addiction and engagement of content, and quick viral spread of content with minimal thought. Could we instead design systems that are more about human communication and understanding? Could we alter our existing platforms to tune down the addictive tribal dopamine hit in their nature? I bet that would have a large impact.

In other words, simply censoring speech without considering the design of the technology would be foolish. The platforms, not the speech, are the problem.