Nobel Peace Prize winner says social media has "come in and used free speech to stifle free speech."

[kpete]

THIS IS SPOT ON!!!!!!!

Nobel Peace Prize winner
@mariaressa
says social media has “come in and used free speech to stifle free speech.”

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=9LmPKG9T8BDejS_W73Vctg

[Jim__]

1. Valery Legasov - as stated in the movie Chernobyl

Valery Legasov : What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all. ...

A number of people who have suffered under totalitarian dictatorships keep telling us the same thing. We should probably listen.

[cbabe]

2. Maria Ressa is a hero, putting her life on the line for truth.

[Caliman73]

3. She is correct. The strengths of Liberal society are often used to try to destroy liberal society.

Something that we all need to pay attention to right now.

Right wingers always whine about "free speech" and censorship, talking shit about "the tolerant liberals". The problem is that this tactic works. Make no mistake about it, it is a TACTIC. Conservatives do not give a shit about free speech and freedom of expression. It is not within their ideological make up to care. Conservatism is predicated on the foundation that "better people" should rule over "lesser people".

Right wingers exploit the liberal belief in the idea that "the best arguments, with the most evidence win". The reality is that not all arguments are valid and should be heard. That statement will likely get some response of, "But you are suppressing speech if you think that way". Perhaps, but if I am talking about the safety a medical treatment with the vast majority of evidence behind it, and someone else, "on the other side", is discussing complete lies about the issue, there is no argument. The opponent is not credible and should not even be afforded the respect of conducting any debate. I am not saying that they should be silenced, especially not by government or by force, but their arguments should not be taken seriously unless they have evidence (real evidence) to back up the claims.

[Tickle]

4. The question is

who determines if an argument is valid or not? For that matter when discussing medical treatments how do you determine what is lies? Do all Dr agree to the same kind of care or are there multiple treatments for the same ailment?

[harumph]

6. Your appendix bursts and some idiot argues

you shouldn't have it taken out. You catch breast cancer in the early stages and some
idiot argues for a homeopathic remedy in lieu of proven aggressive medical therapy.
You scratch a bug bite and get staph running up your leg... (hint: you require antibiotics or you will die).
What determines if an argument is valid or not? Observation over time.

[Caliman73]

7. That is a valid question.

The answer can certainly be tricky. With medicine and other scientific endeavors, it is ultimately the science that determines the validity of the argument.

I think that the majority of doctors would agree that a range of treatments were effective in treating the same ailment with certain advantages and disadvantages to each treatment. While I am sure the debate between doctors, scientists, and other professionals who rely on evidence to guide their work can be heated, there is general acceptance that treatments that do not create greater harm to patients are acceptable. That is not what I am talking about regarding the post.

As I said, we are talking about things that are demonstrably false versus researched and evidence based information.

[FakeNoose]

5. Wow! This is brilliant