[tppiotrowski]

I sense a learned helplessness when it comes to these topics. To say that Meta should police these posts hints at the fact that there is no hope for rhetoric or persuasion and that people are not rational.

Have we completely given up on making a good counter argument instead of disallowing things to be said in the first place?

Suppressing speech has downsides (loss of trust, centralization). Allowing speech also has downsides (misinformation, instigation, hate). How do we decide which is the way forward?

[bigstrat2003]

> Have we completely given up on making a good counter argument instead of disallowing things to be said in the first place?

In short: yes. I haven't given up, nor has everyone. But my experience has been that a shockingly large number of people (possibly even a majority) in the US simply assume bad faith from those with whom they disagree. They aren't even trying to discuss, because they believe that their ideological opponents are unable or unwilling to have a civil discussion. So they are trying to use tools like control of the public square (Facebook in this case) to suppress ideas they believe are dangerous.

I personally believe that this view is quite mistaken. I've had plenty of discussions with people I disagree with, and while we may not have changed each others' minds we at least could walk away with respect for each other at the end of it. But I certainly seem to be in the minority, and that troubles me deeply. Sidestepping discussion in favor of other, more heavy handed, approaches is imo far more dangerous to a democratic society than the ideas that people are trying to suppress in the first place.

[trafficante]

The think-tank -> influencer/trad media pipeline has been optimized to the point where it successfully has captured the long tail of most potential public political discourse.

On virtually any hot button topic, ready made points, counterpoints, and counter-counterpoints have already been disseminated and tested via the crucible of social media.

I don’t even bother engaging in impromptu debates anymore, because it feels like extremely lame high level chess where everyone knows all possible openers and defenses 72 moves out.

[metajack]

The money tends to be on one side of these things, and money amplifies the message substantially.

You can argue that the election was fair all you want, but who is going to pay to run all the ads to impress that message on everyone?

It's already the case that clickbait headlines and lies are naturally more engaging, so amplifying them with money seems to drown out any rational counter dialogue.

[swframe2]

It is suspected that "fiction spreads faster than facts" on social media. It is also suspected that "when you present the facts to someone who wants to be believe a lie, that person will hold on more strongly to their belief in the lie".

[JohnFen]

> the fact that there is no hope for rhetoric or persuasion and that people are not rational.

Right now in the US, the political state has degraded to the point where I this this is a truer statement than anyone wants.

[bcrosby95]

> Have we completely given up on making a good counter argument instead of disallowing things to be said in the first place?

Kinda depends upon the subject. I assume you've never argued with a flat earther or a pizzagate believer. It's a waste of time. You can ignore them or silence them, bringing good counter arguments is gonna be a waste of your time.