You will never reach 100% consensus on any topic and acknowledging it does also not mean that you have to support certain policies.
Don't point your finger at those that are in denial of your perspective, it won't help you solve anything.
If you try to ban them, they will get secondary support at least from people that support human rights like freedom of expression, which is also valid for wrong or stupid opinions.
So you have to go the difficult route of making a good argument for your position and convince others. There is no shortcut here.
There is a parallel here with the paradox of tolerance, in that allowing equal free speech is definitely not an effective & consistent way of reaching the proper & correct consensus. Free speech is too often an academic argument used to justify our inhumanity.
For many people free speech seems to mean equal airtime & consideration for opposition minority & fringe ideas. But when the majority consensus of experts in a scientific field say one thing, providing equal public airtime to the fringe opposition is not accurate nor is it good education. Opposing ideas circulate within expert circles and it is there that they should be reviewed, not presented to the public as equal worth to the majority of other evidence.
I think the articles main position is that if facebook says that it is committed to climate action, then it needs to enforce its own policies around that, which means stopping misinformation & disinformation that does not align with the majority consensus of experts. To me that's an uncontroversial position.
However I have no expectation that facebook has the capabilities needed to ever fully & correctly enforce its policies and to expect it to do so is unrealistic wishful thinking. Unfortunately.
I disagree profoundly with this assessment. I believe that a well researched and articulated position doesn't need to fear objection at all, it will grow with it in any case.
There are interests at play here that will deny established knowledge for self-serving purposes. These conflicts of interest need transparency. That is as true for companies as it is for any committee.
Even within a single mind we see people regularly holding two contradictory beliefs and accepting both of them, so if the marketplace of ideas fails in a single mind then I think is has little luck when it encounters large populations.
But I have to compare it to the alternatives and those do not convince at all.
There is no purely rational and selfless comittee. How would such a group be less self-interested and less vulnerable to group-think? Or less ideological or prejudiced? Because they have some self-imposed mission to a higher cause? Who doesn't?
You can have your benevolent dictator that handles logistical problems of exposure to ideas, but the less error prone way to get the best ideas implemented is a mechanism to boot him out, or in other words, his ideas need justification on the marketplace of ideas. So I must always allow objections.
In the pro-choise vs pro-life case, should the wrong side be blocked from publishing adds?
What about drinking alcohol at 18? It's legal in most of the world.
Who is going to decide in each case? Are you sure they will have the same opinion than you?
The mere fact that our collective behavior is what is causing this means that at some point there will be a fight for the steering wheel.
Humanity appears incapable of collective action. Any future historians, perhaps some kind of advanced insectoid races archeologists, will say that humanities Achilles heel was being incapable of collective action.
Piquing that uniquely human pride and arrogance is a deliberate strategy by some, but the consequences are dismissed by the same, as they are unable to grasp that this will lead to their own downfall too. Even the most dystopian arms dealer must eventually eat.
> That more or less already worked and everyone tries to reduce dependence on fossil fuel, so this isn't even a problem.
Given that there is still large scale climate change denial and opposition to renewable power, I don't think you can be confident in that statement. Until recently, one of the largest polluters & economic powers in the world had a government that actively promoted fossil fuels over renewables and denied the fundamentals of anthropomorphic climate change. Environmental awareness & harm reduction is far from a given.