• tabular@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree the situation looks helpless regarding fighting missinformation but conversation is the only viable tool. Failing that, when the topic is important enough, then only the tool of violence remains. A person about to blow themselves up in a crowd likely can’t be talked out of it. Hopefully the situation isn’t so bad that a lot of people are like that. I think it’s better to promote education rather than trusting anyone to draw a line on what speech I can’t hear (or say).

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can have conversations with people, but first you have to somehow stop the constant onslaught of propaganda meant to keep people in an easy to manipulate mental state.

      You need to give them room to breath first, then you can start working with them to take their fear away and let them reflect on their preconceptions.

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think improving people’s well-being is the best bet to give people the time to potentially become innoculated against manipulation. Stopping propoganda reaching people may contribute to that. Does getting caught censoring not backfire to a high degree (“they’re trying to hide the truth”)?

        • cmhe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, improving the well being is the best way, but doing that is very difficult and takes time. There are so may reasons why people are unwell in the US: suburbia, car centric infrastructure, housing, education, …

          If you are transparent about what is censored and why, your aren’t hiding it.

          After WW2, Germany created a law against Volksverhetzung and later expanded this into laws against hate speech, which was adopted in similar ways in other countries as well.

          The law seems to work well, it is not perfect, but at least the right needs to be much more careful in what they utter. Of course free speach absolutists where concered about it, with slippery-slope arguments, but their concerns where unsubstaniated so far.

          • tabular@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            When it comes to government instead of a business then I am more certain and am of the free speech absolitish kind. Even though I believe speech can hurt, indeed has killed (e.g. driven to suicide my fellow LGBT people), there is simply no one I can trust to decide what speech I can hear.

            I have little faith that any holocast deniers has anything worth hearing but I wouldn’t say they could never have even a grain of truth. What effect are those laws having switch social backlash does not?