• Llamatron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Well treating lies to be as valid as fact has brought you half a population living in their own reality and Trump as president.

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Placing exceptions on the freedom of speech does not mean that lies will get silenced. It means that whatever the government wants to censor will get silenced. Because the government will be the one who does the censoring. Or, if the censoring is not done by the government directly - the government will still be the one appointing the organization who does the censoring.

      The freedom of speech must be protected - even if it means letting bad agents spread their lies uncensored. Because if you try to give the government the power to censor them, you’ll end up with a new Department of Truth led by Alex Jones (who is now unoccupied)

      • Llamatron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        How would you tackle the lies or are you happy that Fox is able to conjure up its own version of reality with no pushback?

        • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Instead of modifying freedom of speech, make large-scale lies jusification to banish someone from the industry, like sex-offenders and schools.

          Still a bit vague and as always figuring out what’s true is hard and ajudicating truth is even harder, but any errors won’t be nearly as bad, and it would still be effective.

          The core issue here is still agreeing on truth though. Can you define a method of ajudicating truth that can’t be misused by an overwhelming amount of bad-faith actors? Can you bind an organization to a method even if every member wants something else?