Discord "Misleading Information" term changes should be ditched
I understand the "ideal" goal of a policy like this. On one hand it seems good to limit the spread of blatantly false and deceptive information, such as someone attempting to claim vaccines cause mental illness. That sort of information can and does actively cause harm.
However, information control is a dangerous thing. Who exactly decides what "misleading information" is? One can not reasonably trust governing bodies to decide that for us (review the suppression of Darwin's works on the theory of evolution by Christian churches or China's restriction on internal information on the Tiananmen Square massacre). The same applies for private organizations.
In more cases than not that "ideal" referenced above is either a cover for or rapidly turns into suppression of information that runs against an authority's preference. Discord should reconsider its stance in regards to this upcoming policy, lest the platform fall victim to such as well.
-
I personally consider it a disgrace that you, a CHAT/VOICE PLATFORM, would consider policing what people are allowed to talk about. Do you know how to truly stop people from believing false information? You let them speak it freely, and those with the correct information will teach them. When you shut down conversation, the only thing you do is deny free speech, which enables false information. If you can't talk about false information, you can't be corrected.
Not only that, it is obvious from your proposed update that this is not about stopping false information, this is about stopping any discussion those on the left would not agree with. As such, I have deleted my primary account and may even delete my alt account soon as well. I refuse to associate with a platform that would ban people and delete servers just for speaking of things the left doesn't like.5 -
This policy (and even the poster here) are confusing "truth" and that which may cause harm.
If someone is claiming that "vaccines cause mental illness", the rebuttal is disproving their claims via reason and science. PERIOD. FULL STOP.
It is not to claim that it is "blatantly" false. That skips around the scientific discussion.
Turning towards, "oh this is causing harm", also skips around the scientific discussion. If someone is claiming that "vaccines cause mental illness" then they themselves are making a claim of harm being done. You don't get to skip around the scientific discussion by claiming harm is being done to believe their claim. The other person's claims still need to be investigated.
Same with "I believe in Science!", a statement that is often said by others to shut down someone else through shame. That just ironically dismisses the other's claim in a very non-scientific way.
And you find that if reasoned debate is allowed to play out, then there is no need to censor. Jeez, people can read and reason for themselves.
That fact is that there are powerful financial interests at play here, and they have a huge influence on the media, which then greatly influences the public. So what ends up happening is a good portion of the public just follows along with these interests and claim without sufficient debate that others are causing harm.
It's ends-justifying-the-means thinking.
Which leads to all sorts of bad things happening. Just read _The Gulag Archipelago_ if you want to see what happens when ends-justifying-the-means thinking is taken to its extreme.
Why is Discord looking to censor THE DEBATE?
Truth doesn't need to censor lies. Truth can stand on its own via real reason and science.
8 -
I mostly agree with Tim Olsen but I'd like to add my point of view: it is completely legit to question something that science has proven. A paper being published just means that it was ok for the reviewer and publisher and that the corresponding payment was made.
I have tried to replicate some medical-related (which what most people just think about when we talk about science), and failed because the provided data was not enough.
There should be no truth that can be imposed over no one, and anyone should be allowed to have his/her own point of view in any discussion. As in any discussion, when someone does not bring evidence or an structured reasoning (such as the scientific method) to a discussion where there are, such point of view is probably discarded by the majority; However it is legit and a human right to be able to express yourself.
Truth is never fixed, the debate will always favor science and no one should fear contradictory opinions. At least that is what I believe.
3
Iniciar sesión para dejar un comentario.
Comentarios
3 comentarios