News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Is... by 8bithero on Wednesday October 11, 2023 @01:27PM (#37847482)
Your concerns about the potential pitfalls of establishing a censorship regime are 100% warranted. However the paradox of tolerance, as described by Karl Popper, is quite relevant here. Popper posited that for a society to remain tolerant, it must have the right to be intolerant of intolerance. This seems contradictory, but the essence is that unchecked tolerance can eventually be exploited by the intolerant, jeopardising the very foundation of a tolerant society. Popper emphasised that the intolerance which shouldn't be tolerated is that which refuses to engage in "rational argument". It's crucial to strike a balance to ensure the preservation of free speech while preventing its misuse.
Re:Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Is... by concordDance on Wednesday October 11, 2023 @01:44PM (#37847744)
> Popper emphasised that the intolerance which shouldn't be tolerated is that which refuses to engage in "rational argument".

This is the key bit most people miss out.

"You should be intolerant of intolerance" is a useless heuristic. You can rephrase most moral statements to be intolerant.

Re:Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Is... by petsfed on Wednesday October 11, 2023 @02:03PM (#37848021)
One of the better "solutions" I've seen to the paradox of tolerance is to stop viewing tolerance as a unilateral act, but rather as social contract: You agree to calmly, respectfully, and rationally engage with my ideas, and I agree to do the same for your ideas. But if either of us refuses, then the other is not obliged to maintain the tolerance.

I think whenever a bad actor tries to talk about tolerance re: being "muzzled", this different formulation of tolerance should be brought up.

Re:Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Is... by willcipriano on Wednesday October 11, 2023 @04:04PM (#37849570)
Karl Poppers theory of falsification is nonsense and not taken seriously by anyone at all serious. Please leave him in the grave and not use his mistake to justify your intolerance.

Said differently:

"The virtuous are virtuous even when they act without virtue so long as the subject of the abuse also lacks it"

No they aren't. The whole point of being virtuous is doing so in the face of evil. If you equate tolerance with virtue you end up at the same place. Tolerance is only valuable in the context of intolerance.