Thread by @Dreamweasel

“The solution to offensive speech is more speech, not less” is a difficult maxim to refute. But it is not without its problems, the greatest of which is that the loudest and most persistent voices invariably end up dominating the discussion regardless of empirical merit

I think some proponents of this ideology cling to a platonic ideal of the “marketplace of ideas” in which the wisdom of the masses is sufficient to separate valuable truth from deceit & chicanery.

This does not appear to be how it works in the real world.

We have similar ideals in our discussions of the economic “free market”, but when, say, Jimbo’s Mom & Pop Shop goes head-to-head with Jeff Bezos’ Half-a-Trillion-Dollar Electronic Megamall it’s not exactly going to be a fair fight

“The freedom of speech is the freedom to lie” is a fairly succinct counterargument, and I will fully credit Alec Empire for the inspiration. But what can (or should) we do when the lies are blasted through an overpowering megaphone that drowns out the truth?

I think the answer to this question relies as much on how we process information as what kind of information we tolerate in the public square. And it’s not like the US populace is a TV set that we can thwack a couple of times & say “Stupid American People! Think More Critically!”

QUESTIONS YOU CAN ASK TO HELP YOU THINK MORE CRITICALLY

- Am I listening to a subject-matter expert, or just a pundit with an opinion?

- Are there other sources or data that confirm what he’s saying?

- Is this person encouraging me to think, or merely telling me WHAT to think?

- Is belief in conspiracy an *essential* component of the view this person is endorsing? (“Everyone in the world is lying to you, but only I will tell you the truth.”) If the conspiracy turned out not to be true, would the argument still make sense?