[throwawaygh]

The status quo is a messy conflagration where initial beliefs were the brush, a combination of mental health issues and social frustration were the trees, and the perverse incentives of engagement metrics provided the high winds.

So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's counter-productive to try to shelter people from ideas but also believing that lots of people are very easy to manipulate, even so easy to manipulate that it can happen en masse and entirely by accident.

(I'm not arguing against the argument against censorship... it's just that I think the censorship issue is mostly a massive red herring when it comes to the issues that are discussed in the article.)

[ksdale]

The silver lining of this awkward middle ground is the certainty that censorship is the wrong way to go. We may be doomed if people remain so easy to manipulate, but if you really believe that censorship is counter-productive, then education is the only path out.

[throwoutway]

We’ll also be doomed if this is just a trial run that just enables authoritarianism in another decade. If people roll over on this now, the government won’t care to subdue the populace more & more in the future.

[throwawaygh]

Ugh, no! I mean, yes, but also, stop getting sucked into this stupid debate. It's a red herring.

[ksdale]

And I guess to expand on my position, I don't think this debate is stupid. The way through, in my mind, as naive as it may seem, is to be basically like substack, and acknowledge that providing a platform is a big responsibility, one they don't take lightly, that the goal is increased trust overall, and that that goal is primarily served by being as content agnostic as possible. Acting in good faith with no expectation that people will return the favor is the way to build trust.

[throwawaygh]

> by being as content agnostic as possible.

This is not congruent with profit motive, so they will fail. Either as a company or as at this goal. Almost certainly the latter.

Google set out to not be evil and Zuckerberg set out to connect the world. Both, I'm sure, sincere.

[ksdale]

Haha I can sense your frustration! What is the real debate, in your mind?

[throwawaygh]

Factored out into a separate thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30093413

[canadaduane]

I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

One thought experiment that has helped me get my mind around the problem is "why is it necessary that parents shield children from some information?"

I think free speech might have a context that is invisible to us. Something like a prior, or trained neural net, in which free speech and no censorship is absolutely the right thing. And then there might be other contexts where it is wrong, and harmful.

In other words, "dangerous ideas" may be the wrong way of thinking about free speech--it might be "dangerous contexts" of our minds--such as childhood. If so, what then?

[zpeti]

There is a difference between a child and an adult. We make that distinction for a reason, and we act differently for a reason.

A great analogy is to think of an eggshell with a chick inside. The eggshell provides protection for a long time but is also restrictive. When the chick is strong enough it will break free. But if it breaks free too early it won’t be strong enough to survive in the world.

[judahmeek]

Do you have any statistical studies that show that adults are less likely to be manipulated than children?

If so, how was "manipulation" defined exactly?

[tekknik]

Do you actually need studies? Adults for the most part are more educated, children are not. Therefore it’s easier to tell a child a lie than an adult. You can use basic logic.

[canadaduane]

I like your analogy, as I appreciate thinking about it. Some thoughts:

Breaking an eggshell requires effort, and seems kind of like a "test" to me. But in most human societies, it's possible to simply let time pass and you will reach the "age of majority" (usually 18 or 19 years old). I wonder if we're doing a disservice by allowing children to cross that boundary without any "eggshell test".

[water8]

To rephrase, your argument: Why lying is ok in small doses. It’s still a morally dubious and supremely arrogant position

[robotresearcher]

Insisting on free speech means that lying is OK in arbitrary doses.

I'm strongly for free speech. But it logically entails allowing people to lie as much as they want.

[yanderekko]

>One thought experiment that has helped me get my mind around the problem is "why is it necessary that parents shield children from some information?"

I'd argue that paternalism is particularly justified in relationships that are literally paternalistic.

The issue is that the justification for my neighbor paternalistically dictating how I should live my life is much weaker a parent dictating to their child. We shouldn't deeply have to delve into why this is the case.

[canadaduane]

Philosophy is often the tool I reach for when trying to deeply understand complex issues.

[kolanos]

> So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's counter-productive to try to shelter people from ideas but also believing that lots of people are very easy to manipulate, even so easy to manipulate that it can happen en masse and entirely by accident.

Don't think it is an accident. The ruling class has set this stage by design. There is little to no critical thinking being taught in K-12. Create a malleable population, then push censorship to protect them from themselves.

[lliamander]

You can't teach critical thinking. There are techniques you can learn, but critical thinking is fundamentally an attitude. It's the attitude of never taking anything you read or hear at face value.

And while it can be quite important, it's also super exhausting. I think people's tolerance for that kind of work exists along a spectrum (probably with at least some biological component) but that no one can really do it all the time.

[Chris2048]

You can teach the principles, and example of why it's important to create motivation.

any subject requires a motivated attitude to succeed. Critical thinking also requires an attitude to value the topic IRL - but arguable that ought to be the case for all topics.

> It's the attitude of never taking anything you read or hear at face value.

A class in philosophy (or history) of science will teach you all the ways in which people where wrong before the process was established, and will make you see the value of science. CT is the same thing applied to everything, not just formal physical studies.

> it's also super exhausting

Only because most things are written to manipulate. If publications actually suffered for their reputation b/c of poor articles the whole thing would be easier. Also, if journalists set out to prove their claims, and properly source them - arguably something like Wikipedia is a group effort to do what is hard for the individual (I think it fails, btw, by leaning too much on published material).

[matthewdgreen]

“Never taking anything you read or hear at face value” makes it impossible to operate in a functioning society. This is particularly the case in a society where some people are happy to fill your information channels with conflicting information. Even if you do your research and reject some of the bad data, the effort will paralyze you (and others like you) which is almost as good from a malicious perspective.

Or to think about it from an information security perspective, once you adopt a specific defense mechanism, someone will look for ways to exploit it. This one is particularly easy to exploit.

[zozbot234]

Newsflash, there is little of anything being taught in K12. Public schooling is a sad joke in the US.

[BeFlatXIII]

It’s why I was so unconcerned with the school shutdowns early in the pandemic. Even an entire semester lost wouldn’t noticeably impede the nonexistent learning of US students. However, now that’s it’s been two years of on and off online school, that’s well past the point when detrimental effects would show, even in the US education system.

[soco]

Did we ever have a less malleable population? Was critical thinking ever taught? If this is by design, I'd argue the design was there since the dawn of civilization. (Note: no I'm not offering any solution, just making an observation)