In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even More Rights

Re:In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even... by canjobear on Thursday January 08, 2015 @06:08PM (#8859654)

I agree when this is about suppressing opinions, but things are trickier when this is about suppressing disinformation. Pervasive propaganda that appears to be factual can easily manipulate the conclusions of rational adults. Of course, laws that attempt to suppress disinformation are probably ineffective and incredibly liable to abuse outside of restricted domains.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even... by AnthonyMouse on Thursday January 08, 2015 @11:24PM (#8860744)

> I agree when this is about suppressing opinions, but things are trickier when this is about suppressing disinformation.

Somebody has to decide what is classified as disinformation. If you have the government do it then whoever the people elect as a censor may make bad decisions. (This is historically what has happened.) If instead you have independent media outlets do it then you have the same problem. Citizens may choose the outlet that publishes disinformation.

The difference is that in the absence of censorship the choice is made by the individual. If 51% of people watch Fox News and Fox News reports disinformation, 51% of people are affected by the disinformation. If 51% of people elect a censor who prohibits everything but what is reported on Fox News then 100% of people are affected, which may lead to a feedback loop in subsequent elections.

It's not that you don't have anyone whose job it is to prevent disinformation from being reported. It's that the person whose job that legitimately belongs to is called a journalist, and you get to choose the ones you like.

[ Parent | on HN ]