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 meant the marketplace of ideas as in the arena of intellectual discourse, not scientific innovation. It has long been argued that if people freely hash things out, the truth will rise to the top. I was addressing the question of what happens when technology makes deception so convincing that this process breaks down, and no amount of exposure to the truth moves people when algorithms keep up well-fed on confirmation bias.
JD, I think he is talking politics, not technology. One could imagine Himmler saying, “Whaddya mean the martketplace of ideas is broken? Go look at cremo #4, just finished and nothing like it anywhere!” Excuse the Nazi allusion, they are just such an easy target. Examples also abound in the modern West.
The problem with the marketplace of ideas is precisely that unlike an authoritarian regime, one never knows where it might go. The borders of the playground may be defined, but in the rough-and-tumble of politics, they are not as durable as one might like. And to make them durable requires the force of censorship or other limits on individual or civil rights.
David, the devil’s bargain of establishing a free and open liberal democracy is that one has to reckon with the possibility that the democratic process allows a nation to choose fascism. Perhaps that’s a possibility we simply have to live with, as humans are stupid and malleable (even the intelligent ones can be stupid and malleable). Batya Ungar-Sargon believes that over 60% of Americans have similar beliefs and priorities. But we are led by the 20% of power-mongers and ideologues on the extremes, and those are both the catalysts for change and the threats to democracy. They lead through vision and power of personality, and if they can sway enough of the middle, reform or revolution can be the result.
Perhaps the price of democracy is accepting that the next militarized authoritarian censorious regime could be just around the corner, legitimized by popular vote.
I agree, it's something we must accept. If we want a democracy, that means power to the people. But within the legal confines of a liberal democratic system. Our system is amendable, but I believe even as is, it's a fine bulwark against authoritarianism, indeed the best one out there.
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?
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 meant the marketplace of ideas as in the arena of intellectual discourse, not scientific innovation. It has long been argued that if people freely hash things out, the truth will rise to the top. I was addressing the question of what happens when technology makes deception so convincing that this process breaks down, and no amount of exposure to the truth moves people when algorithms keep up well-fed on confirmation bias.
JD, I think he is talking politics, not technology. One could imagine Himmler saying, “Whaddya mean the martketplace of ideas is broken? Go look at cremo #4, just finished and nothing like it anywhere!” Excuse the Nazi allusion, they are just such an easy target. Examples also abound in the modern West.
The problem with the marketplace of ideas is precisely that unlike an authoritarian regime, one never knows where it might go. The borders of the playground may be defined, but in the rough-and-tumble of politics, they are not as durable as one might like. And to make them durable requires the force of censorship or other limits on individual or civil rights.
David, the devil’s bargain of establishing a free and open liberal democracy is that one has to reckon with the possibility that the democratic process allows a nation to choose fascism. Perhaps that’s a possibility we simply have to live with, as humans are stupid and malleable (even the intelligent ones can be stupid and malleable). Batya Ungar-Sargon believes that over 60% of Americans have similar beliefs and priorities. But we are led by the 20% of power-mongers and ideologues on the extremes, and those are both the catalysts for change and the threats to democracy. They lead through vision and power of personality, and if they can sway enough of the middle, reform or revolution can be the result.
Perhaps the price of democracy is accepting that the next militarized authoritarian censorious regime could be just around the corner, legitimized by popular vote.
I agree, it's something we must accept. If we want a democracy, that means power to the people. But within the legal confines of a liberal democratic system. Our system is amendable, but I believe even as is, it's a fine bulwark against authoritarianism, indeed the best one out there.
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?