> We have a myriad of evidence that societies that suppress the truth for "the public good" don't go in a desirable direction or end well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063531
> Are you saying that the truth is "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"?
You can socially suppress the obviously wrong without any danger. The marketplace of ideas doesn't need to make an effort to hold on to cranks.
> Are you saying that the truth is "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"?
vs. a reformulation, to capture your stated intent:
> Are you saying that we should allow the circulation of obviously wrong ideas like "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"?
Just because some of the 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers' crowd also believes censorship is a bad idea, we can't infer that everyone / a majority of people that believe censorship is a bad idea are also believing 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers'. Alas, our brains are very prone to this kind of elementary logic error, which makes the broadbrushing mechanism so powerful.
I, personally, don't see how this leap in logic is implied, and it certainly wasn't intended. Thanks for the explanation, unfortunately I can't change the original post.
Hopefully it's clear that that wasn't my intent. To be a bit defensive though:
> your reply accused them personally of believing that 'Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers'. They never even mentioned Covid19 or 5G.
No, I didn't. I asked them a very pointed question that forces them to either take on a ridiculous position or to confront a flaw in their line of reasoning. I find this to be a valid strategy when discussing with people. I certainly don't believe that the person I responded to thinks 5g causes Covid. I think basically no one believes that. Hence why I thought that the question would be interpreted as I intended: that there's a difference between censoring "truth" and "untruth". This was apparently missed.
This is the proverbial slippery slope, albeit a bit anachronistic as the more egregious case is the latter (5G conspiracy), so the escalation is unable to be painted by the sequence.
I’d also ask you consider that your line of thinking as a framework has been misused throughout history, often in the context of censorship.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Of course, the obvious retort is that these people aren’t Galileo, but I’m arguing that this framework is bad on a societal level.