zlacker

>>crbela+(OP)
> The number of true things we can't say should not increase. If it does, something is wrong.

Word.

>>frizla+uw
The problem comes from deciding what's true. It's factually true to say that a higher percentage of black people than white people are convicted felons. It's also grossly negligent to describe that as a cause ("black people have higher tendencies to become criminals") than as an effect ("centuries of systemic racism held higher numbers of black people in poverty, and poverty highly correlates to the kind of criminal behavior that gets you arrested, and also lower quality legal representation, which makes it more likely that the next generation will also be poor; lather, rise, repeat").

Is it a lie to say "black people are more likely to be felons"? No, but if that's all you have to say on the subject, then you're probably a jerk and shouldn't be talking about it at all.

TL;DR I'm weary of people saying things that are factually true on the face of them, but that utterly distort the conversation. See also: "scientists don't know how old the universe is" (but have a broad consensus of a narrow band of values), "vaccines can harm you" (so can water), "it's getting cooler in some places" (global climate change doesn't add X degrees to every location uniformly), etc. etc. etc.

>>kstrau+Oe1
True things which make you a jerk (to some) shouldn't be censored to avoid "distorting the conversation". Respondents can explain the context.

>>baggy_+vf1
The flipslide is trolls will spew out the lies faster than you can rebut them. Much faster. Orders of magnitude faster. The lie is short, pithy, and requires little thought. The truth require context and effort. After a lie has been rebutted several times there is little value in allowing it to be repeated constantly. Eventually the truth tellers get worn down and the lie is allowed to live on in perpetuity, allowing more and more people to believe it over time.

>>jandre+Mg1
That is a view which is entirely opposed to my own. I have no faith that there is some authoritative entity that could objectively determine what is a lie and what is the truth.

>>baggy_+mh1
If you don't act against disinformation, you get a world that is spammed with so many statements that it's impossible for the average consumer to assess the truth of any of them.

Is that what you want?

If yes, why? If not, what's your approach?

>>perlge+Km1
I already stated my approach. Let speech be met by more speech in return. Consumers can assess the credibility of each.

>>baggy_+Eo1
But your approach results in someone who can't even conceive of the truth being identifiable. It doesn't seem like a great way to run a society.

>>jandre+6r1
Having the power to determine truth does not seem like a great way to run a society even if it gets you some easy wins on other fronts.

It might work at first and be effective for some time in the same way that a dictator can "get things done" but there is no free lunch.

Eventually you will get evil dictators, power hungry arbitrators of truth. It will bite you. It is only a question of when. It might be years or generations. The only winning move is not to play. Don't concentrate the power in the first place.