undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmbesto1y ago0 comments

> Free speech is grounded in the idea that people are capable of reasoning and forming their own opinions. If we truly trust in that, the source of the influence - foreign or domestic - shouldn’t matter.

Sure, but then why is electioneering banned by polling places? Or why is voter intimidation illegal? You have the draw the line somewhere.

> are implicitly admitting that they don't trust their population to think critically.

A democracy that is NOT a direct democracy is already admitting this. This is exactly the reason we have proxies in a representative democracy.

0 comments

3 comments · 3 top-level

sdwr1y ago

You got it, it's about playing by the rules. A robust culture of propriety is one line of defense against the bad times, and we're losing it.

lmm1y ago

> Sure, but then why is electioneering banned by polling places? Or why is voter intimidation illegal?

Because those things are not just speech - they're implicit or explicit physical threats.

America runs most of the world's social media platforms and expects other countries to be happy with that, but then panics the moment another country dares to offer them the same thing? I don't know which scenario is worse, the one where this is just an excuse for an America First trade war or the one where the US genuinely believes that controlling a social platform means you control the countries that use it.

olalonde1y ago

> A democracy that is NOT a direct democracy is already admitting this. This is exactly the reason we have proxies in a representative democracy.

I think it’s less about admitting this and more about the impracticality of having citizens vote on issues daily.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse