When the Marketplace of Ideas Goes Broke
What follows is an excerpt of an essay published this week by the Foundation for Economic Freedom. You can read the full essay here.
Advocates of free speech champion it because they believe in the marketplace of ideas. The notion is that open discourse allows all perspectives to be heard and tested. When ideas are challenged, we cut through the clutter of bad thinking with the benefit of arguments sharpened by other minds.
At least, that’s what the brochure says.
But what happens when media bias, political propaganda, bot armies, troll farms, and deep fakes become so sophisticated that we can no longer trust our own eyes? What happens when the marketplace of ideas goes broke? When sunlight no longer disinfects?
The easy solution is to censor the harmful things you don’t want to hear. But this raises two problems. First, whom do you entrust with such immense power? Who gets to determine the truth? Second, censorship doesn’t actually eliminate bad ideas but rather drives them underground—now with the dissident’s badge of respectability.
The moment people are censored, we begin to wonder if they’re onto something. But if we feel that all views have been given due consideration, we’re more likely to trust the truth as it unfolds. Even when we agree, some truths must be tested and sharpened against the whetstone of rebuttal.
Continue reading here.
I agree with the article's conclusion, but not the clickbait headline. The marketplace of ideas is hardly broke. SpaceX just caught a rocket with chopsticks, for crying out loud!
I don't know who to trust, and sometimes accept things because they sound rational, come from an authoritative source that I am inclined to trust, or (to my shame) sometimes accept things because they bolster my preconceived notions and preferences. As a reasonably intelligent and (if I may flatter myself) rational person, I find it distressing that I feel I am unable trust most sources of information around me. I attempt to listen to opposing viewpoints, to counter arguments, to facts that do not support or agree with my personal predilections. I believe there is Truth and I want to know it. I want to understand those with whom I disagree. I believe the old adage that "steel sharpens steel" and enjoy the sharpening of my mind and my arguments.
I am dismayed by the foolishness I see all around me. This week: I have debunked a posting whose intent seemed to be soley to frighten the reader. I have seen more ads and fake news items that are obvious click bait than I have legitimate ones. I have seen a rather obvious AI fake of Paul Harvey's "The Rest of the Story". I was disgusted by a clumsy attempt at a story about an ambush interview of Clint Eastwood that turned an unfriendly audience into full-throated support for the apparently saintly actor and politician - it was an obvious fabrication (though for all I know may have been loosely based on an actual event). And then there are the posts by friends across the political spectrum containing an astonishing display of logical fallacies including ad hominem attacks, straw men, false equivalencies, false dichotomies, and more. I am dismayed not only by the sheer volume of these hoaxes, or the motives of those perpetrating them, but also by the numbers of people who are so intellectually lazy or gullible that they appear to be willing dupes.
Then there is the question, "which people in the press, in government, or producing content on podcasts are worthy of my trust?" I feel we have been lied to, or attempts have been made to manipulate us in ethically questionable ways, by authorities we once trusted implicitly (or trusted with an understanding that they leaned one way or another, but would not bend and distort things beyond recognition). Now the anchors of understanding no longer hold and we are adrift on an ocean of ideology and competing narratives. Too many in power (or attempting to seize power) seem to have the motto, "by any means necessary" (and it is not just the Marxist from whom the phrase sprang).
One might be justified in wishing for some form of censorship to curb the whelming flood of irresponsible reporting, corrupt information, hoaxes, lies, unfounded innuendo, often wild accusation, even attempts to conceal truth. The temptation to rein in the worst purveyors of hatred, lies, misinformation, disinformation, and dangerous speculation is real and widespread. And yet ...
Wisdom rears it's grey head and asks, "what will the effects be; what are the alternatives?"
There is, I believe a real dichotomy of effects - Continuing as we are will lead to more confusion, the propagation of ignorance, and amplification of fringe voices (implying the attenuation of voices that should be heard). Any but the most basic censorship (for example basic laws against libel and slander, or incitement to crime) means reducing chaos but will result in some voices being silenced - which would inevitably include both those who engage in harmful speech and those who ought to be heard (or who unartfully express a harmless opinion or ask an indelicate question). Is it better to live with the chaos or to deny a basic freedom to some who do not merit silencing?
If censorship is the answer, what is its form? Do we entrust this horrible power to ethically challenged politicians or unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats? Should we erase the First Amendment from the Constitution? What will prevent an untethered government or unleashed judiciary from imposing draconian punishments for socially or politically injudicious speech? Do we follow Great Britain's lead and arrest people for retweeting an unapproved post? Please explain to me how this censorship could be accomplished without the potential for abuse or expansion beyond the minimum needed to tame our wild culture. I fear the cure is more toxic than the disease.
I hesitate to offer a very difficult and time consuming alternative. It is education. How to educate everyone using social media? Begin with community notes type rebuttal systems. Enforce anti-abuse and anti-scam rules on platforms rather than simply censoring unpopular opinions. Teach logic and the use of rhetoric in our schools. Advocate and support debate in our schools. Promote truth telling as a virtue to which we should aspire. But that would be so difficult while censorship is quick and easy. Down and Dirty?