I don’t think I’m changing the subject, I am asking you to look at the bigger picture. Your comment may not have been about facebook specifically, but we are in a thread about a new facebook initiative regarding yet another form of censorship. You list an opinion that you say has more merit than another, and fine, let’s say I agree. My problem with looking at things through such a small lens is that “merit” seems pretty subjective, and if we continue to stand by as we let these tech companies decide what merit means, one day they will go too far, and it’ll be too late.
Here’s an example of two opinions that I think are unequal. “the government has the right to confine people who have not broken any laws to their homes” and “the government does not have the right to confine people who have not broken any laws to their homes.” In Australia, the government has decreed that the first opinion has more merit than the second. Should facebook follow suit, and censor anyone in australia who disagrees?
> I am asking you to look at the bigger picture
> My problem with looking at things through such a small lens is that “merit” seems pretty subjective
Ok, the bigger picture with a bigger lens is this: How do you slow the spread of harmful ideas?
You agree that some ideas are "better" than others. I think you would also agree that there is no simple definition over what "better" exactly means. It's complex and often elicits complex discussion.
My point, that you are trying again to skip over, is that presenting any idea as if it is inherently equal in merit to any other idea is fundamentally bad. To be specific, I think this because I believe that good ideas will eventually prove themselves out over time (even if they spread very slowly) while bad ideas will tend to rely on rapid spread to reach critical mass before they are disproven.
Do you just want me to tell you that I think you're right? I don't really see this thread going anywhere productive. You seem to be arguing a purely philosophical position, and if I "changed the subject" to relate your position to TFA, then my bad.
Meanwhile, facebook is using the actions described in TFA to ban anti-lockdown accounts in germany. Just like my hypothetical, but in a different country!
My position remains: opinions do not all have equal merit and because of that should not all be given equal weight. And that there is some level at which an opinion can be so low-merit that comparing it to a conflicting high-merit opinion as if they are equal becomes disingenuous and harmful.
Here’s an example of two opinions that I think are unequal. “the government has the right to confine people who have not broken any laws to their homes” and “the government does not have the right to confine people who have not broken any laws to their homes.” In Australia, the government has decreed that the first opinion has more merit than the second. Should facebook follow suit, and censor anyone in australia who disagrees?