| > Thats assuming they engage with the logic at all, which is an assumption you cant make Even people with psychological conditions have the capacity to modify their behavior. > preventing terrorism is generally considered better than just arresting people after it happened That premise came out of 9/11 when the terrorists didn't care if they died. In ordinary cases such as these you don't need a precrime unit because catching them after the fact provides a deterrent that prevents them from doing it to begin with. But also, the police already do that. They send under cover officers into extremist groups and get warrants to conduct surveillance on individuals suspected of plotting violence. Then they get arrested for the plotting violence, not for speech. > Unless you are suggesting we ban all moderation, no echo chambers form due to selecting information sources you only agree with and information sources pandering The largest sites could exclude only that which is illegal. > censorship at least gets rid of the non true believers Until you actually implement it and end up censoring a bunch of stuff which is true, preventing some other lie from being corrected. And then people find out about that happening and lose faith in the censors, start looking for "alternative" media that doesn't do that, and get sucked back into conspiracy theory land. > the reason stuff like qanon spread so quickly is because they used sites like facebook The reason it spread so quickly is that Facebook promoted it, because their algorithms reward controversy. And that's the real problem. If you carry on promoting "engagement" there will just be some new conspiracy theory, which you don't even notice until there are already a million people sucked into it and somebody gets killed. Stop doing that and there is nothing to censor. |