Why is the simple solution just "pretending"? What evidence is there that a complex solution exists or works? What is the basis of the assumption that good actors are not as effective as bad actors? Why has society not devolved into chaos if that's the case? How did this work before social media and online anonymity?

I would say it's pretending because it's not 100% certain to be the solution. As mentioned, the situation is incredibly complex and can't be properly argued in a one-liner. There is no evidence that a complex solution exists, but I would say it's better if you know you don't have the solution to imply uncertainty.

Good actors are almost certainly more effective than bad actors. That's likely why the world hasn't devolved into chaos. But societies DO devolve into chaos, such as revolutions and wars. These also obviously take place at times when society is most fearful / angry. But it's possible that many societal wars and revolutions would be unnecessary if good actors used rational discourse to reach solutions.

> "Good actors are almost certainly more effective than bad actors."

By your own exposition, this is the simple and effective solution that's inline with what I stated. Let freedom reign because the good already solves for the bad, and has done so for the entirety of civilization. Do we really need more?

Fair point. I guess part of this conversation also depends on what each of us believes society's goal should be (minimize suffering, maximize individualistic freedom, etc).

My thinking is more so from a position of minimizing suffering, and that finding a way to reduce the power of bad actors may help minimize wars and other conflicts and reduce suffering. There's obviously the big counterpoint that attempts to reduce power of bad actors may lead to increased corruption that in turn worsens society that if it hadn't been attempted.

But that's why this is just another example of a complex problem.

People should never be allowed to claim suffering from political speech. It is that simple in my opinion. Yes, this legally allows Nazis to hold rallies outside of a synagogue. However, in practice this rarely happens, and is arguably a benefit to society since these people (Nazis) are now outing themselves as insane.

On the other hand, human history has shown that political parties will attempt to censor anything they can. We can see this with the alternative realities constructed by Fox News/MSNBC and we can see it in totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea. I am not aware of any counterexamples of a country where the government does not attempt to influence the narrative.

I’d also like to point out. The Nazis didn’t come to power with free speech.

They came to power by silencing their opponents through force, political posturing, manipulation, and opportunistic behavior.

In fact the Nazis squashed free speech in many ways, and used violence, threats, and coercion to make others silence their friends.

Frankly had free speech been protected and valued by any means. We may not have had a third reich.

Let the fascists speak, let them out theirselves. So that common people can distance themselves.

The problem is that the concept of free speech cannot be independent of the concept of power. Rules and Laws are only as good as the people in power choose; we've been lucky in many ways that most of the time, the people in power choose to behave in a way that upholds the laws that we consider important. However, that "good will" is specifically what malicious actors exploit in order to achieve that power and then violate the same rules that allowed them to spread their message and come to power.

And unfortunately, once they have power, there is very little that normal people can do to ensure that they will obey by the rules that got them there (i.e. free speech). I would argue that there was no way to prevent the Nazis from squashing free speech except by preventing them from coming to power - and this is true with many malicious actors. Unfortunately, that means we have to balance the need for free speech with the need to prevent malicious groups from coming to power.

Ergo, the Paradox of Tolerance.

> And unfortunately, once they have power, there is very little that normal people can do to ensure that they will obey by the rules that got them there (i.e. free speech).

This is where the second amendment shines isn't it?

Laws do not fight. People do.

> My thinking is more so from a position of minimizing suffering

Don't you think that's unfair by nature? How do you justify it?

Fairness isn't an end in itself, but unfairness can cause people to revolt, which then leads to more suffering.

It's just a matter of how you weigh such considerations: https://www.utilitarianism.net/types-of-utilitarianism

I know what utilitarianism is, as someone who leans more to the side of deontological ethics. The problem with fairness not being an end means you can't have justice. Your moral ethics culminates on the never ending struggle we have right now of shifting the blame for what happens and what doesn't, and you're fine with it because you're blinded by the hope that it'll work. If you're willing to tell me why, as well as why you're proud of your relativism, why the means justify the end, I'm all eyes. If you're not, I'll understand.

> In some conversations bad actors can gain more power in a debate using misleading information than a good actor can by using the truth.

Can "actors" be neatly divided into "good" and "bad"? Who decides who is a "good actor" and who is a "bad actor"? Your judgement of who is "good" and "bad" may well differ from mine.

> Your judgement of who is "good" and "bad" may well differ from mine.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Usually that only works if you ignore the definition of terrorism.

What is the definition?

There is a simple solution. If you read something, and you’re offended by it, that’s your problem. The worlds full of stuff, you’re free to take offence to absolutely anything at all. Nobody has any obligation to protect you from that.

The one and only place this falls over is with the concept of “obscenity”. But if that’s the only place you have to make exceptions, they are much, much easier to define.

Is bad actor bad because they use misleading information?

Is good actor good because they use truth?

What is good/bad actor?

To prevent bad actors we must become just as bad or worse.

I am offended when you say these things: Bad actors weeded abuse fear lies misinformation anger

They should delete your post for sure right?

I think the issue is that YouTube wants to be seen as the "creator" for the content they distribute, and therefore, all content must not contradict the brand image of Google.

Alternatively, YouTube needs to put more emphasis and responsibility on the reputation of content creators and make it such that their reputation gains them visibility over time. A creator with 20 years of community determined honest reporting, should be featured more prominently than a channel that is new or has a controversial history.