> Free speech absolutism is possible and is beneficial once you ensure that someone is not gaming the system, i.e. someone pretending to be more than one person.
And how is one supposed to do that, especially against nation-state actors such as Russia and China, both of which have been caught or implicated multiple times now, or against ordinary criminals?
> Filter bubbles? Doesn't have to be a thing, you have all the data to detect bubbles and pop them by introducing them to each other.
Great idea, expose LGBT people to Christian fundamentalists, it's not like harassment from these groups and their ideology isn't one of the leading causes of suicide of LGBT people.
"Filter bubbles" are the self-organized "social mechanisms that we organically use in our daily lives to combat bad actors" you were talking about.
Completely agree. People who think unmoderated online platforms are equivalent to a flourishing state of nature have not really thought one or two steps ahead.
No thought whatsoever about the fact that increasing automation makes astroturfing, propaganda, "coordinated inauthentic activity" possible in a way that was not easily practical before.
Additionally, no one thinks about what filter bubbles really are in practice, or models what they imagine to be the healthy exchange of ideas, or whether our present choices to be selective about information have broader array of functional purposes than are captured by an oversimplifying term like "filter bubble."
I feel like this is a conversation about free speech on the internet that is due to mature, and that as it matures there will be a new inventory of 101-level fallacies broadly understood by everybody. One fallacy would be the idea that bots, trolls, harassment campaigns, mob mentality and coordinated state-based campaigns are the same as a "free market of ideas" that leads to the optimal state of exchange of ideas. Another fallacy would be the notion that any act of preferentially selecting sources is comprehensively analyzed and understood by labeling it a "filter bubble."
And how is one supposed to do that, especially against nation-state actors such as Russia and China, both of which have been caught or implicated multiple times now, or against ordinary criminals?
> Filter bubbles? Doesn't have to be a thing, you have all the data to detect bubbles and pop them by introducing them to each other.
Great idea, expose LGBT people to Christian fundamentalists, it's not like harassment from these groups and their ideology isn't one of the leading causes of suicide of LGBT people.
"Filter bubbles" are the self-organized "social mechanisms that we organically use in our daily lives to combat bad actors" you were talking about.