Access to information feels to me like a human right. Blocking that by any means (legal blockade, price unrealistic high) feels like an infringement on a Human Right.
I know this isn’t the way the world works yet, but a Human can dream.
Idealistically, I agree with access to information. But how do you square that (and I don’t have a solution) with the proliferation of misinformation used to manipulate the population or the access to dangerous information such as building bombs and bio weapons?
Who decides what is misinformation? The state? The ministry of truth? That is the problem with this sort of wishful thinking.
> used to manipulate the population
The media industry manipulates opinions via TV channels and newspapers and has done so for the last 50 years. Heck, some states have their own TV channels like the BBC, France Info (France) , SVT (Sweden) which is completely ironic since the state funds them and there is no way to know how neutral these are.
> dangerous information
Dangerous information is a misnomer. You could print out how to build an atom bomb and give the step-by-step instructions for free in entire neighborhoods and no one will be able to build it because you need the right expertise and the materials to create one.
Same with bio-weapons unless you think you can develop these in your kitchen after work?
Secondly, we are back to the same problem. Who decides what is "dangerous information" and how far would you be willing to go to contain it? Censor social media? Censor private messages? What about emails? Textbooks? Listening devices in all homes? Cameras that you can't turn off in your toilet in case you pass information to someone else while taking a crap?
I find your argument to be in extreme bad faith. Instead of steel manning the argument, you are repeatedly straw manning it.
Certainly you can understand that deliberately lying about, for example, areas where the science is overwhelming such as vaccines or climate change, is misinformation. I explicitly said I don’t have a solution, your introduction of a “ministry of truth”, “wishful thinking”, censorship and surveillance are your own fabrications, not part of my argument.
janandonly · · focus · HN ↗
I know this isn’t the way the world works yet, but a Human can dream.
latexr · · focus · HN ↗
rdm_blackhole · · focus · HN ↗
Who decides what is misinformation? The state? The ministry of truth? That is the problem with this sort of wishful thinking.
> used to manipulate the population
The media industry manipulates opinions via TV channels and newspapers and has done so for the last 50 years. Heck, some states have their own TV channels like the BBC, France Info (France) , SVT (Sweden) which is completely ironic since the state funds them and there is no way to know how neutral these are.
> dangerous information
Dangerous information is a misnomer. You could print out how to build an atom bomb and give the step-by-step instructions for free in entire neighborhoods and no one will be able to build it because you need the right expertise and the materials to create one.
Same with bio-weapons unless you think you can develop these in your kitchen after work?
Secondly, we are back to the same problem. Who decides what is "dangerous information" and how far would you be willing to go to contain it? Censor social media? Censor private messages? What about emails? Textbooks? Listening devices in all homes? Cameras that you can't turn off in your toilet in case you pass information to someone else while taking a crap?
latexr · · focus · HN ↗
Certainly you can understand that deliberately lying about, for example, areas where the science is overwhelming such as vaccines or climate change, is misinformation. I explicitly said I don’t have a solution, your introduction of a “ministry of truth”, “wishful thinking”, censorship and surveillance are your own fabrications, not part of my argument.
r3trohack3r · · focus · HN ↗
dtho · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗