Consider this quote from a recent NY Times article[1]
"These scholars argue something that may seem unsettling to Americans: that perhaps our way of thinking about free speech is not the best way. At the very least, we should understand that it isn’t the only way. Other democracies, in Europe and elsewhere, have taken a different approach. Despite more regulations on speech, these countries remain democratic; in fact, they have created better conditions for their citizenry to sort what’s true from what’s not and to make informed decisions about what they want their societies to be. Here in the United States, meanwhile, we’re drowning in lies."
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html
If Googlers feel that strong about inequality, why not give away your fortune to social causes?
Yes but with enough people whom build tools that amplify signal. Then the people will learn. I'm hopeful we'll shorten this delay as we age.
Indeed, people in this forum often seem to call attempts to discern signal from noise "censorship."
Edit: turns out I didn't have to wait long for a concrete example of that to come up. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24782944
I think that's a great philosophy for structuring a democratic republic form of government, but trying to apply that philosophy universally to all circumstances and all human interaction leaves it a giant untested hypothesis.
It would be nice if truth always won out. That would be cool. Insufficient data to say for sure that it does.