Re:Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story
by j8hn on Sunday October 25, 2020 @10:05PM
(#24892163)
I don't think either of your opinions have to be acknowledged or assumed in order to have a sensible conversation about this issue.
"We haven't had this issue in history before: it's never been so easy to reach so many people with such bad information."
Is this a literal statement?
Is it bad information?
Re:Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story
by centimeter on Sunday October 25, 2020 @10:11PM
(#24892202)
> stolen information
Who the hell cares if the information was stolen? Jeffrey Epstein's little black book was "stolen information" - do you object to using that information to make an indictment?
> intentionally misleading information
Crazy how a credible leak is "intentionally misleading" when it's politically inconvenient.
We haven't had this issue in history before: it's never been so easy to reach so many people with such bad information. This places intermediaries, including Twitter, in an awkward situation: they can "censor" by restricting access to intentionally misleading information; or they can release it, and thereby become pawns of the bad actors who propagate it.
As has been pointed out, this is a moral issue. We should step pretending that all censorship is bad, and that compelling intermediaries to publish literally everything is a moral good.