Comments by "jeppen" (@jesan733) on "Should Freedom of Speech Extend to Social Media? (Part 1) || Peter Zeihan" video.

  1. Just like police, courts and various other authorities. Yet we seem to need them.
    20
  2. Disinfo campaigns do pose threats. E.g. lots of people were injured and some died due to Trump's disinfo campaign concerning the 2020 election.
    19
  3. Same with police, so no police?
    17
  4. No, truth isn't relative.
    10
  5. Like "monopoly on violence".
    8
  6.  @lookoutforchris  your attempt at debunking my argument falls completely flat. Worst Dunning-Kruger I've seen today. It's exactly my point that we've had police and courts for ages, and they're abused and abusive, yet we need them. And it's clearly "actual history". Thus OPs rhetorical "can never be abused" is not a valid argument. Anything can be abused. We need to strike the best balance we can.
    8
  7.  @MA_KA_PA_TIE  I've read 1984. I don't think an emotive name, nor dystopian fiction, makes it clear that we don't need a specific institution. There's plenty of dystopian fiction about e.g. police too.
    7
  8.  @johnnyel  tinfoil hat on!
    5
  9.  @zee9709  no I didn't.
    4
  10.  @hikashia.halfiah3582  "arbiter of truth" and "enforcer of order" are interchangeable in your arguments, so you didn't really motivate why one should be handled by an institution such as the police and one not. If you meant to do so?
    4
  11. Same with police and courts, could go very wrong if we create such institutions. Honestly, I think a "ministry of truth" is just one of these things we need and we have to find an institutional balance that works. The disinfo campaigns, foreign and domestic, it's doubtful we can survive them being unregulated. The mere fact that Trump is close to winning again is testament to that. And yeah, I know some media tend to overinterpret him a a bit and may see dog whistles that are or aren't there.
    3
  12.  @TankEnMate  exactly. So something sounding "scary" doesn't mean we don't need the institution. I think we need to curb disinfo, so, in a sense, we need an arbiter of truth.
    3
  13. Being accidentally wrong is not really the problem. The problem is the conscious disinfo campaigns. Nothing points to irregulaties deciding the last four years.
    3
  14. What is he wrong about then, in this segment?
    3
  15.  @AngelEconomics  that was wrong, the internet is a viable source of information. However we have to stamp out the systematic disinfo efforts.
    2
  16. Perhaps, but not by this vid. It was quite good.
    2
  17. ​ @estonianman  I'd also vote for Harris if I were American. She's normal and competent, while Trump is unfit for office in so many ways.
    2
  18. Wanting a president fit for office who could create sustainable solutions rather than just tearing stuff down on a whim isn't leaning much to the left.
    2
  19. Then it should improve.
    2
  20.  @MC_heart4  that was not my claim.
    2
  21. Yes, but perhaps that's preferable to unfettered disinfo campaigns.
    2
  22. I think it was a pretty good take. On balance, something has to be done about disinfo. Overcorrection isn't currently the problem.
    2
  23.  @JJthename55  it's not about thought police, it's about combating major volumes of disinfo from malicious actors. I don't think we should go after a grandma who happens to be wrong on the internet, I think we should go after businesses (including influencers) thriving on peddling disinfo.
    1
  24. It's not about hate speech, it's about systematic disinfo.
    1
  25. No, that wasn't portrayed as absolute truth.
    1
  26. Why? It's not about you, it's about the deliberate disinfo campaigns.
    1
  27. As a EU citizen, I fail to see how America is greater do to more free speech. Can you elaborate?
    1
  28. Governments usually have a balance of power, appeals courts and so on.
    1
  29.  @mwsr2521  jan 6 was just the most visible subplot in Trump's coup attempt.
    1
  30.  @firstjupiter  nah, it's just that gop is hijacked by crazies currently.
    1
  31. ​ @firstjupiter  it's not that Peter has a huge bias towards dems, it's rather that maga is pushing people away.
    1
  32.  @n1ngnuo  stop with the conspiracy theories.
    1
  33. Businesses aren't allowed to sell harmful products with false claims, but they can sell pure false claims that are harmful to us. Make it make sense.
    1
  34. We aren't better off with more lies.
    1
  35.  @SnarkyMikey  they should be regularly shaved?
    1
  36. There are also clearly disinfo campaigns that consciously lie to make our societies weaker, or simply to earn money.
    1
  37.  @J31  perhaps you could read "The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model" by RAND as a start?
    1
  38. We seem to need it, yes.
    1
  39.  @jazznik2  we all know that, but that there's a dystopian story doesn't mean we don't need some institution to combat disinfo.
    1
  40.  @jazznik2  education seems too slow a fix for the problem we have. For the foreseeable future, I think we need to do whack-a-mole on disinfo campaigns with some kind of government tooling.
    1
  41.  @jeffevans4196  courts judge people and companies every day based on the courts' determinations of true and false.
    1
  42.  @LoneWolf-wp9dn  can't sell products with misleading info, but can sell misleading info as a standalone product. Make it make sense.
    1
  43.  @wisenber  yes, they really are interchangeable. Consider your wording: Theoretically in democracy, the highest of all institution is the people, through whatever representative system you have. So the only "arbiter of truth" should be the people. vs the changed wording: Theoretically in democracy, the highest of all institution is the people, through whatever representative system you have. So the only "enforcer of order" should be the people. There is nothing in the first sentence that says the second sentence should be one or the other.
    1
  44.  @wisenber  I don't have to support it because everyone knows there's occasionally corruption and abuse of power within law enforcement.
    1
  45.  @wisenber  "No, they really aren't. One makes a determination. The other physically enforces determinations." They really are. Hikashi didn't talk about that in his argument, and it was his argument that was under scrutiny. You pointing out some kind of category difference is not relevant to what he said, nor does you argument ties things together for him.
    1
  46.  @SignalCorps1  comparison? I debunked an argument in a valid way. Think about it. You’ll figure it out
    1
  47.  @wisenber  "How so? You didn't support your premise." I don't have to prove what people already understand.
    1
  48.  @wisenber  "You actually do. Otherwise, an unsupported premise renders an fallacious conclusion." I've seen so many times people like you trying to make others prove things everybody already knows, and refusing to let it go. Idk if it makes you feel important or if you just want to disrupt threads. Either way, I'm not playing your game. Or at least not that way.
    1
  49.  @wisenber  if you don't even remember what we're discussing, what's the point? Also, it's spelled sequitur.
    1
  50.  @wisenber  "I've seen so many people like you trying to pretend your premise doesn't require any evidence." I don't pretend. "Threads without evidence? Sure." Don't ask people to prove water is wet. Make interesting disruptions instead of inane ones. "Providing evidence isn't your game at all." Lying about others is your game though.
    1