undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmichaelmrose8y ago0 comments

The fairness doctrine makes little sense in the context of the internet. My random comment/post on reddit may in the course of a paragraph contain 5 different assumptions that may be orthogonal to the actual main point.

It will not contain therein space for alternative thoughts on the main point let alone space for any alternatives for any unexamined assumptions.

Truth is multidimensional and fairness impossible to determine to everyone's satisfaction. For example 2 people discussing the best way to travel around the world are unlikely to find agreement with someone who believes the earth is flat and impossible to fly around and 2 different types of dating artifacts are equally meaningless to someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old.

Alternative viewpoints can find themselves a home in the comment section or if undesirable there on your own home on the web.

Wherein the web isn't censored in a heavy handed fashion we have the most reasonable answer to the fairness doctrine. Everyone can be heard but not everyone will find an audience that desires to listen.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

aninhumer8y ago· 1 in thread

>Wherein the web isn't censored in a heavy handed fashion we have the most reasonable answer to the fairness doctrine. Everyone can be heard but not everyone will find an audience that desires to listen.

But is that really reasonable or fair? What decides who will find an audience to listen to them?

Free speech advocates seem to believe that the "best" speech will always find an audience, but I don't personally see any reason to believe that's true.

When a rich person can pay for a political advert on a major television channel, and a poor person can only publish to a blog no one has any reason to know exists, do we really believe that the latter's ideas will spread more widely if they are "better"?

I think people are starting to realise that access to an audience is far more important than the simple freedom to say something, and that this access is already heavily restricted in a variety of ways other than government intervention. But unlike the mere ability to speak, access to an audience is fundamentally limited. It's physically impossible for everyone to hear everyone else's views. So a simple idea like "Freedom of Speech" is not sufficient to allow us to decide how to structure our societal discourse.

michaelmroseOP8y ago

The speech this is most in line with peoples preconceived notions will likely find an audience but whats to be done about it?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse