Why cant we control free speech like guns or classified data, so different level of rational people are allowed access to increasingly more sensitive and provocative information?
Posted Jun 29, 2021, 11:41 PM UTC
052
The problem is who controls this? Beyond the basics of what you’re suggesting.
5
Not the government, maybe NGO and social media (with government or NGO guidelines). Its like an advanced captcha for humans, preventing gullible and extreme people from becoming harmful due to too much snuff film, terrorist propaganda and extremist contents. Its not criminalized so nobody goes to jail if they tricked the system into gaining access, but at least we control the flow to decrease extremism.
0
Thats not a good idea even if it was practical.
5
Why not? GOvernment/military and social media have been doing it for years, kids are not supposed to have free access to snuff film and terrorist propaganda or extremist content no?
-2
Cos that's the opposite of free speech
4
Free speech doesnt mean kids get free access to snuff film, terrorist propaganda and extremist content no? No access to classified government/military data either no?
0
Your post makes no sense.
2
Because that's a dictatorship in waiting, and disallowing a large and specific group of people from general information is a horrifying concept.
4
Nobody is getting criminalized for access, but control is implemented to limit the flow to irrational and extreme people, at least not without proper supervision.
A professor of philosophy are allowed more access than a regular joe with questionable record for example.
We are already doing this with classified government and military information, as well as social media company censoring specific harmful contents, no?
You would agree that kids shouldnt have access to snuff film, terrorist propaganda, etc, no? Why not do the same for adults who may not be rational?
0
Who decides who and who is not rational?
Congrats, you've given the government a huge amount of control over what people get to see. "Democrats aren't rational, they obviously hate the country, so they can't read the news anymore." "Republicans obviously aren't rational, they don't support gun control, so they can't read the news anymore."
3
Like I said, it will not be simple and may require advanced human review or AI interviews before access is granted, depends on the level of sensitivity or severity of harmful contents. It may not be the government doing it, maybe social media or NGO, by the people for the people, to prevent kids and other irrational people from becoming harmful extremists due to exposure.
Politic has nothing to do with it, its bi partisan.
0
No, no it isn't. Everything is biased. A program is as biased as its programmer is, society is as biased as the majority it, the government is as biased as those who control it.
No matter who determines the criteria, there will be bias, and people will have their rights stripped away.
3
This is literally fascism
4
Stop trying to crush people's inherent freedoms
4
I am not? I am asking a question, you could convince me otherwise with good answers.
1
The fuck?
3
So, you define who is 'rationale' like what? Political dissidents? You know people who end up in a ditch, like people mentioned, journalists and so forth? My goodness, this is something that I'm really having to step back and not say (or type) what I'm thinking. You're something else, OP.
3
and I never said this control will be by the government or criminalized, no? You misunderstood me and went for extreme assumption, see what I mean? Case in point, this is why we need tiered access to sensitive and harmful contents to prevent extremism by people who cant process these info well.
1
No, I understood you loud and clear. You're just not very bright
3
case in point, again.
anonymity and free access to extreme contents have desensitized many into acting very badly and aggressive, rude, violent, something that would not be widespread offline. Its like a kid that grew up on 4chan/8chan/stormfront with no supervision.
1
Without free speech to weed out the stupid ideas through the collective conscious, there is no discussion. Only violence.
That's the sacrifice you have to make in order to have liberty from authoritarian rule. It's one of the Demons of Democracy, you have to let stupid people have the chance speak. The public will decide whether or not to follow and act upon it.
3
Not controlled speech, my mistake, controlled access.
1
Because that’s this lil thing called Authoritarianism
2
Social media and Government/military already limit flow of sensitive and harmful content/data, dont see it being a problem no? Although they are not good at it.
0
Social Media
Yes that is suppression on free speech on their platform, majority of them are considered to be authoritarian in nature
Government/Military
These are documents of often critical importance, and unlike your suggestion there’s no “levels of rationality”, it’s either people who are important enough to the operation to know, and people who aren’t. These restrictions do not limit the discussion and spreading of ideas, yours do
3
limiting access, not spread, nobody is getting criminalized for it. Should we let kids and mentally unstable people have free access to snuff film, terrorist propaganda and other harmful content?
1
so we should let children have access to snuff films
That’s an awful idea, why would you even suggest that?
2
This is the plot of many dystopian stories, and a bit of dystopian history.
2
I know in practice it would be difficult, though not impossible to controlled tiered access to information this way, since its hard to tell who is rational and who is just pretending so they can gain access to "Youtube Sensitive Info stream" for example. But what if we could do this with AI? Like an advanced captcha or interview for human?
Would this be a good idea? It would not be fool proof but at least it would drastically decrease the probability of extreme people accessing sensitive and provocative info that could make them even more extreme and hurt people in real life. Ya?
I mean a sociology professor accessing a bunch of terrorist/supremacist/racist/extremist content for research is much safer than a regular Jane/Joe doing the same no?
0
This is called 'elitism'
This belongs in r/shittyaskreddit
But we dont let kids watch snuff film and terrorist propaganda no?
But it’s not government mandated that they don’t, that’s up to the parents
and I never said this control will be by the government, no? You misunderstood me and went for extreme assumption, see what I mean? Case in point, this is why we need tiered access to sensitive and harmful contents.
Who would control it?
And when you say “case in point”, you actually have to say it after an example that backs up your point is given, you don’t say it when your piss poor phrasing led to confusion
It's really up to the parent. So who would be the 'parent'?
And all children will become adults and choose for themselves.