[smrk007]

> The question we need to be asking is whether we should banish certain ideas to an echo chamber that the rest of us have no incentive to enter, or whether we should allow free expression of all ideas — no matter how repulsive — so rational minds may finally have an opportunity to prevail

Has the free expression of all ideas through current means allowed rational minds to prevail? It seems that the status quo has failed to facilitate rational discussion.

And what sort of metric would we use to evaluate the success of a community to have rational discussion?

[kiba]

The algorithms are not neutral, nor are front page neutrals. They all optimize for the most popular and often the most incendiary material to show to the people at large. These websites are always choosing something to say.

When a website remove links from the front page or from the algorithm, they are necessarily choosing something else to say, unless they really do run out of content.

[smitty1e]

Which matters more: rational minds, or truth?

[smrk007]

Obviously both are important, but I would at least thing that approaching an issue from a rational mind (not angry, etc.) would help one arrive at truth much more quickly.

[smitty1e]

I'm seeing large chunks of "rational" people avert their gaze from consideration of "truth", and the fallout promises to be ugly.

[buffaloo]

In a democracy, neither. It’s consensus, or at least a critical mass of acquiescence. Rationality or truth haven’t any part in it.

[kyrra]

The US isn't a democracy though...

[ardy42]

>> Has the free expression of all ideas through current means allowed rational minds to prevail? It seems that the status quo has failed to facilitate rational discussion.

> Which matters more: rational minds, or truth?

That question is based on a false premise. Irrational minds aren't going to arrive at truth through their own processes, except by accident.

And "free expression of all ideas through current means" hasn't allowed the truth to prevail, either. It's allowed even blatant, meritless lies such as QAnon and "Stop the Steal" to become widespread and influential, supported by a whole constellation of other more subtle lies.

[smitty1e]

> meritless lies such as ..."Stop the Steal"

I sincerely hope to see this election put to a thorough legal test after the inauguration, because I'm falling short of agreement with you here.

[ardy42]

>> meritless lies such as ..."Stop the Steal"

> I sincerely hope to see this election put to a thorough legal test after the inauguration, because I'm falling short of agreement with you here.

Why? It was already heavily scrutinized and no problems where found, and certainly none that would change the outcome in any way.

Also, it's clear that the main (perhaps only) reason this election was challenged was to assuage the fragile ego of an insecure man with a gift for demagoguery, a man who apparently has always used "loser" as the ultimate insult and cannot tolerate being one.