“the Four R’s of Responsibility:” “remove, raise, reduce, reward.”
I mean, I generally agree that censorship is a bad thing. But there’s some lines that could be drawn and they start where the things you’re posting can endanger or even kill others.
I can’t agree with the article points when they’re talking about cancelling medical misinformation during a global pandemic that killed so many people. Spreading this kind of false info can get other people killed indirectly and… yeah, i’m not a fan of being killed because some nutjob saw a video of another nutjob saying that you shouldn’t wear a mask.
Everyone is responsible for his own content diet. Freedom of speech is fundamental in a free society. How do you distinguish “truth” from misinformation and propaganda without it?
There’s that thing called facts and evidence to help us. If I’m a medic and tell you that you should drink bleach because it’s good for your body, and you drink it trusting that I, a medic, am a reputable source of knowledge, are you telling me that I’m not responsible if you die because of drinking bleach?
Do you think people shouldn’t be responsible for whom they trust?
That doesn’t answer my question tho. And it raises another one: are you implying that nobody should be trusted and that we have to assume that everybody is lying?
It does answer. If you die because you did whatever someone told you, it’s still your own responsibility for blindly following ill advice. I’m not implying that nobody should be trusted. I’m clearly saying, it’s your responsibility to choose who you trust.
Some people can’t make such decisions and should be protected somehow. Getting knowledge and information to people is better than just blocking bullshit but it’s way less effort required to create new bullshit then to refute it. Especially if there is already a bigger fundamental knowledge-deficit in the targeted group.
Also I don’t see how this is a big deal as google/youtube has always collaborated with the usa for censorship so why shouldn’t they do it in the eu too?
That’s why I talked about a reputable source (like a doctor). Of course following advice from an unknown random person is out of question, but what about that given from someone who is presumed to be trustworthy in their expertise field?
What if my doctor gives malicious advice aimed to cause me harm? Am I still responsible for that? Isn’t the doctor at fault for what they did?