---- "You can see now that some journalists get the tag "Russian affiliated" just because they try to report on all sides the same way. "
No. That's not what that means.
'Russian Affiliated' does not mean 'taking the side of Russia'. It literally means 'Russian Affilated'. That's factual and relevant, not a bias.
---- "Where's the enlightened group of individuals that decide what truth is and is not?"
Doctors and Medical Researchers get to decide what medicines work and which one's don't. Not Pilots and Aerospace Engineers.
Engineers, Pilots get to decide what constitutes 'safe to fly'. Medical researchers do not.
And you (assuming you are neither) do not get to decide that.
Imagine if we didn't have systems of integrity for flight safety and medical technology.
Would you be in a position to run clinical trials on every drug you consumed?
Are you going to run flight safety tests on every plane before you get on?
Of course not.
We have to create systems of integrity or nothing will work.
Now - if you want to go on the internet and do your own medical research, you can do or say (almost) anything you want so long as you are not causing harm.
------ "The 'truth' does not rise to the top. If you mean your twitter feed, certainly not. But on the long term, it surely does."
The 'truth' does not rise to the top in the commons. The truth only rises to the top if conscientious people decide to create systems in which it does.
Generally 'free expression' is required for the truth to come to the fore, but in completely open systems, the person with the most seductive narrative will determine what most people believe, about most things.
Again using medical example: were it not for regulatory constraints around what people can say about drugs they are selling it would be a 'free for all'. Medical tech would go back to pre-Englightenment era, it would be a disaster. We'd have to immediately start to develop systems of trust back in that community one way or another.
----- "So, you're saying that the Twitter board knows what's best for the public good and what's not. They're the enlightened ones then? How did they attain this state?"
I didn't imply anything like this.
Twitter employees don't know anything about anything, they don't have to and it's not relevant.
But they do know that Person A is Person A - meaning they can legitimize names. They also know what consensus is around some medicines like Ivermectin, because they have access to trusted resources. Then find out which journalists work for which government. They know if the US election was stolen or not.
And of course they know what a violent threat is when they see it more or less.
And so they act on that.
That's not 'Enlightenment' of any kind.
------- "I'm saying they (Europeans) should decide for themselves. Nobody should tell you what you can and cannot read"
You're misunderstanding the situation, and misunderstanding human nature.
Nobody is telling Europeans what to think. They are making it more difficult for sources of propaganda to misinform - and that's a big difference.
We are all mostly passive with respect to the information we consume. Most of it we just absorb by seeing it on the news or whatever. That means, if someone can take control of 'common sources of information' then they can fill the commons with misinformation.
This idea that even intelligent people are immune to propaganda is false. If you let Putin control 50% of the news, he will spew all sorts of information, hide other bits, in a way that will allow him to manipulate people.
If everyone went out and actively researched everything it would be less of a problem.
'The Commons' makes decisions based on what they consume on a passive basis, that's the reality of it.
Nobody is banning anything in Europe, or anywhere else. 'Twitter' is not the Internet, it's just a little thing.
If Europeans want to actively go and watch Russian TV, read Russian blogs, and absorb every bit of Putin propaganda - they are free to do so.
But we are not going to allow Putin or those like him to infest our public commons with bullshit.
No. That's not what that means.
'Russian Affiliated' does not mean 'taking the side of Russia'. It literally means 'Russian Affilated'. That's factual and relevant, not a bias.
---- "Where's the enlightened group of individuals that decide what truth is and is not?"
Doctors and Medical Researchers get to decide what medicines work and which one's don't. Not Pilots and Aerospace Engineers.
Engineers, Pilots get to decide what constitutes 'safe to fly'. Medical researchers do not.
And you (assuming you are neither) do not get to decide that.
Imagine if we didn't have systems of integrity for flight safety and medical technology.
Would you be in a position to run clinical trials on every drug you consumed?
Are you going to run flight safety tests on every plane before you get on?
Of course not.
We have to create systems of integrity or nothing will work.
Now - if you want to go on the internet and do your own medical research, you can do or say (almost) anything you want so long as you are not causing harm.
------ "The 'truth' does not rise to the top. If you mean your twitter feed, certainly not. But on the long term, it surely does."
The 'truth' does not rise to the top in the commons. The truth only rises to the top if conscientious people decide to create systems in which it does.
Generally 'free expression' is required for the truth to come to the fore, but in completely open systems, the person with the most seductive narrative will determine what most people believe, about most things.
Again using medical example: were it not for regulatory constraints around what people can say about drugs they are selling it would be a 'free for all'. Medical tech would go back to pre-Englightenment era, it would be a disaster. We'd have to immediately start to develop systems of trust back in that community one way or another.
----- "So, you're saying that the Twitter board knows what's best for the public good and what's not. They're the enlightened ones then? How did they attain this state?"
I didn't imply anything like this.
Twitter employees don't know anything about anything, they don't have to and it's not relevant.
But they do know that Person A is Person A - meaning they can legitimize names. They also know what consensus is around some medicines like Ivermectin, because they have access to trusted resources. Then find out which journalists work for which government. They know if the US election was stolen or not.
And of course they know what a violent threat is when they see it more or less.
And so they act on that.
That's not 'Enlightenment' of any kind.
------- "I'm saying they (Europeans) should decide for themselves. Nobody should tell you what you can and cannot read"
You're misunderstanding the situation, and misunderstanding human nature.
Nobody is telling Europeans what to think. They are making it more difficult for sources of propaganda to misinform - and that's a big difference.
We are all mostly passive with respect to the information we consume. Most of it we just absorb by seeing it on the news or whatever. That means, if someone can take control of 'common sources of information' then they can fill the commons with misinformation.
This idea that even intelligent people are immune to propaganda is false. If you let Putin control 50% of the news, he will spew all sorts of information, hide other bits, in a way that will allow him to manipulate people.
If everyone went out and actively researched everything it would be less of a problem.
'The Commons' makes decisions based on what they consume on a passive basis, that's the reality of it.
Nobody is banning anything in Europe, or anywhere else. 'Twitter' is not the Internet, it's just a little thing.
If Europeans want to actively go and watch Russian TV, read Russian blogs, and absorb every bit of Putin propaganda - they are free to do so.
But we are not going to allow Putin or those like him to infest our public commons with bullshit.