793
submitted 1 year ago by gsa4555@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tabular@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I agree the situation looks helpless regarding fighting missinformation but conversation is the only viable tool. Failing that, when the topic is important enough, then only the tool of violence remains. A person about to blow themselves up in a crowd likely can't be talked out of it. Hopefully the situation isn't so bad that a lot of people are like that. I think it's better to promote education rather than trusting anyone to draw a line on what speech I can't hear (or say).

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You can have conversations with people, but first you have to somehow stop the constant onslaught of propaganda meant to keep people in an easy to manipulate mental state.

You need to give them room to breath first, then you can start working with them to take their fear away and let them reflect on their preconceptions.

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think improving people's well-being is the best bet to give people the time to potentially become innoculated against manipulation. Stopping propoganda reaching people may contribute to that. Does getting caught censoring not backfire to a high degree ("they're trying to hide the truth")?

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, improving the well being is the best way, but doing that is very difficult and takes time. There are so may reasons why people are unwell in the US: suburbia, car centric infrastructure, housing, education, ...

If you are transparent about what is censored and why, your aren't hiding it.

After WW2, Germany created a law against Volksverhetzung and later expanded this into laws against hate speech, which was adopted in similar ways in other countries as well.

The law seems to work well, it is not perfect, but at least the right needs to be much more careful in what they utter. Of course free speach absolutists where concered about it, with slippery-slope arguments, but their concerns where unsubstaniated so far.

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

When it comes to government instead of a business then I am more certain and am of the free speech absolitish kind. Even though I believe speech can hurt, indeed has killed (e.g. driven to suicide my fellow LGBT people), there is simply no one I can trust to decide what speech I can hear.

I have little faith that any holocast deniers has anything worth hearing but I wouldn't say they could never have even a grain of truth. What effect are those laws having switch social backlash does not?

this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
793 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

57944 readers
2911 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS