[complexmango]

I’m probably older than you and heard this exact same argument used by the Indian government to censor television (we had exactly 1 channel of government run TV growing up).

Are you listening to yourself? You sound like a religious zealot hundreds of years ago arguing to ban the technology of books because they might say things you disagree with. ‘Ban Martin Luther, he is trying to destroy the Catholic Church’.

It remains a mystery why so many Americans are so incredibly ignorant of history. Is it because school systems became overrun by propaganda because of teachers unions?

[hackyhacky]

1. There is a quantifiable difference between banning dissenting opinions and banning intentional weaponized misinformation. No ban will be perfect, but a failure to fight back against misinformation is the same as giving power to anyone with enough money and enough Twitter followers. The loudest voice controls the most minds.

2. We're not in the middle ages anymore. Back then, a malicious individual seeking to spread misinformation was limited in their options. The target audience wasn't literate, so the best you could do was stand shouting on the street corner. These days, unlike any previous time in history, we have fast, effective, cheap methods, that adapt to the user's preferences, to tell them exactly what they want to hear. We know from plenty of historical examples of both wartime and peace-time propaganda, that lies are effective. How can you be so ignorant of history?

In short, it's not Martin Luther I'm fighting against, but rather the Catholic Church.