[Arainach]

> Anyone can try to push public opinion in a specific direction, but someone else will simply go the opposite way. There would be no moderator or algorithm to artificially boost one type of noise over another, so we would actually get a less corrupted feed that accurately represents what people are thinking because the noise cancels eachother out

This has never been true and never will be. Entities with more resources have dramatically more ability to put their perspective out and dominate the messaging.

[Certhas]

This is so blindingly obvious just by looking at what is happening...

It's like the believe that markets are inherently efficient and we just need to get rid of all the government interference that distorts the free market.

There is no evidence for it, the theoretical argument is so flimsy it falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, the various ways in which markets are inefficient are several entire subfield of economics. Yet the idea persists...

The notion that you just need a proper free market of ideas and then the best ideas will automatically win, and we just need to get rid of everything that interferes with this free market of ideas is cut from the same cloth...

Maybe it has the same attraction as "blame the immigrants". It gives you an immediate automatic scapegoat for everything you see in society that you don't like.

[bit-anarchist]

The belief isn't unjustified though. One of the defining elements of a government is aggression. Spending resources to force someone (specially with violence) to something is more wasteful than if they were to do it by themselves. Furthermore, most, if not all, cited inefficiencies are linked somewhere to distortions created by government action.

That being said, I do agree that there's a dangerous apathy about how the free markets work. The free market, being the product of voluntary action, is anything but automatic.

But I don't see how that is a scapegoating mechanism for "anything you don't like". Anymore than apathy is, at least. I see human rights (specially the right to live and private ownership) being used as scapegoats much more often.

[txrx0000]

"Entities with more resources" are not necessarily bad, as you seem to assume. In reality, they're not aligned with eachother. This is just as true for nation states as it is for individuals.

When everyone can talk without censorship and fear of persecution, the best ideas might not always win, but the good ones usually will, and the worst ones will always lose. This is why every authoritarian regime needs censorship to survive.

[Arainach]

You're not describing a world of freedom and opportunity. You're describing a world where anyone with money can do whatever they want without consequences.

The good ideas do not usually win. The loudest ones tend to win. The worst ones frequently win.

[txrx0000]

The world I'm describing is one where anyone, rich and poor, can say whatever they want without being silenced or persecuted, without fear. People with more resources will have the means to make themselves louder in public as they do now, but unlike the situation we have right now, they will not be able to monitor other people's private conversations, nor can they censor and compell other people's speech. That's a world of more freedom and opportunity.

The loudest ones are not aligned with eachother. Their efforts to influence public opinion will neutralize eachother, and none of them can gain moderating power over the platform because the platform is just protocols. Ideas will clash, leaving only what people think is good in common. And that is the definition of the common good.

Do you have any better ideas? Or do you think that you possess the superior definition of "good" such that public discourse to search for it is unnecessary?

[Arainach]

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

> The loudest ones are not aligned with eachother. Their efforts to influence public opinion will neutralize eachother, and none of them can gain moderating power over the platform because the platform is just protocols

This does not match reality. Those with money and power DO have a lot of goals that are aligned with each other. They're not incompetent, and they understand the power of collusion. If you think they cancel each other out you're living in a fantasy.

[bit-anarchist]

> The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

The solution, presuming said law to be fair, is to make a world where no one has to sleep under bridges, to beg on the streets and steal their bread. Not getting rid of the rule of law. Of course, that presumes said law to be fair (aside from the last part, it isn't).

> Those with money and power DO have a lot of goals that are aligned with each other. They're not incompetent, and they understand the power of collusion.

Most people share goals, understand the benefits of collaboration, and exploitable conflicts still arise. The problem isn't caused by a lack of shared goals, but the presence of conflicting ones. Even just one can inhibit collaboration and induce sabotage. After all, there is no long-term collaboration to be had if your goals are mutually exclusive.

Also, it think it bears reminding that the alternative, regulation, is enforced through a powerful corporation that is structurally much harder to hold accountable (despite best efforts, although it was always a non-starter), the state.