this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
1025 readers
1 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For the record, I am pro vaccine, I was very pro mask during COVID, and I strongly supported the various lockdown and masking policies. If anything I felt they often didn't go far enough, prioritizing continuity of business over public health. For the most part I stand by those positions. The question here is not the validity of anti-maskers or anti-vaxxers, or the question that their visibility can do harm to society. I believe it is pretty obvious that such groups did some serious harm and cost a lot of lives.
The question here is whether the government should be coordinating with technology platforms to suppress speech it disagrees with or considers harmful. And I think the answer is hell no. Even if they requests in the COVID era were helpful, this is not a good thing for government to be doing.
Go back to the 9/11 era. It was a similar situation, just with the parties reversed. Then a Republican government was saying limits on civil liberties were essential for national security, and opposition to these policies help terrorists. Now a Democratic government was saying limits on civil liberties were necessary for public health and opposition to these policies spreads disease. The merits of these two positions are irrelevant. What matters is that a free American people should have the opportunity to make that judgment for themselves, not have the "wrong" answer suppressed before they even see it. Because if we suppress the 'wrong' anti-vax today, then we open the door to suppress the 'right' answer tomorrow.
If American people are such sheep that they must be protected from 'wrong' ideas, then the answer is not censorship, it is education. If we are that stupid, that we need to be treated like children, then we need to very quickly and with great urgency figure out why our educational system is failing to teach critical thinking and fix it immediately.
I'd largely agree if it was as simple as people being allowed to make wrong choices.. But its much more than that. Nefarious actors have literally weaponized disinformation on social media in attempts to sow distrust, animosity, and general social unrest, and that absolutely needs to be addressed beyond just 'better education'. Governments have the challenge of balancing the peoples civil rights with maintaining a healthy and relatively orderly society.. I'm all for free speech but weaponized disinformation is a legitimate threat that shouldn't be downplayed. IMO.
If anything, I'd like to see this be made one of the more important issues by our politicians. It really bugs me that, after all the attacks on our society by bad actors using actual disnfo campaigns, there really isn't anyone making it a major campaign issue (correct me if I'm wrong!). These bad actors are using our obsession with free speech as a weapon against us, fighting a war that our government doesn't appear to give two shits about. I really believe we can figure a way to fight back without stepping on freedom's toes. I mean, we're supposed to be fucking America for chrissakes, we can figure this out!