[0x4477]

> The issue isn't "identify", nor "trust". It's effort.

This is merely shifting the goalpost in the game of censorship.

How is

>"The adult voting public cannot be trusted to _invest sufficient effort_ to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves"

functionally different from

"The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves"

?

The particular reasons for someone believing that the public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs still assumes that the public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs and puts us right back where we started. Not to mention, how is that a better argument than any other qualification for the same idea? Why not education as opposed to effort? Or experience?

The ultimate issue is that any way you spin it, it leads to a centralized authority being entrusted with the task of determining what is and isn't wrong and that is a fundamental non starter if we are to try and preserve free speech in a meaningful way. No one entity can be trusted to be the arbiter of morality for everyone.

[ergothus]

> How is "The adult voting public cannot be trusted to _invest sufficient effort_ to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves" > functionally different from "The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves"

You've inserted the word "trust" in there - I was saying we all shouldn't HAVE to.

Let me insert "trust" into your argument, not to be troll-ey, but to show how that's biasing the argument needlessly, and I'll also answer your question.

I recognize my limitation to not be an expert in everything, including distinguishing experts in all fields from those that falsely claim to be.

I recognize that others are ALSO so limited. If you want to call that not trusting people, feel free, and let's adjust this argument to be "there are other people who feel as I do" - the conclusions will be the same.

We (myself and these like-minded others) wish to select those we do trust to filter out the worst abuses. We'll set up rules to say on what basis these decisions are made.

Of course, any system is prone to abuse, but we judge that our ability to monitor this group is better than our ability to monitor literally everyone.

You aren't trusting us to do that.

> it leads to a centralized authority being entrusted with the task of determining what is and isn't wrong and that is a fundamental non starter if we are to try and preserve free speech in a meaningful way

Considering my position here that absolute free speech turns out to be harmful, this feels like a tautology.

Humans have been filtering and evaluating words from others throughout history. Often poorly, even without a centralized authority involved. Often a centralized authority filters words poorly. Yet in the face of both of these words have been heard, progress is made. Perhaps the more important aspect is that we individuals value hearing the words of others, even words we don't like, and push back against excessive filtering, without requiring that no filtering be done.

You aren't trusting us to be able to do that.