Let’s Discuss Control, Verification, Enforcement, and the Restriction of Expression

Madiator2011
December 16, 2024

👁 18

https://blog.madiator.com/do_edit : 👁 2
https://blenderdumbass.org/ : 👁 2
https://blog.madiator.com/ : 👁 2

License:

GNU Affero General Public License Version 3

...in reply to:

Lets Discuss Moderation, Misinformation, Censorship and Freedom of Speech

blenderdumbass.org

Blender Dumbass
[thumbnail]

People are free to speak not because it is useful, but because they are free to make sounds with their mouths. People are free to write not because it is useful, but because they are free to move their hands around, or use tools, some of which make lines on pieces of paper.

View Referenced Publication

Based on a widely accepted understanding of social order, one can deduce that any form of uninhibited sound, gesture, or expression inherently undermines collective stability if left unchecked. It is not that people are free to speak because it is a natural right or because it simply follows from their ability to make sounds. Rather, unfettered vocalization and writing should be curtailed to ensure that individuals do not stumble into harmful thoughts. Freedom of speech is not so valuable that it cannot be limited for the greater good.

The phrase "which in itself does not constitute Power," though often used to defend absolute freedom, reveals a situation where uncontrolled expression can actually be used as a weapon. From threats to subtle manipulation, unscrupulous operators twist liberties into tools for deceiving and controlling others. This justifies a vigilant response: structured moderation and robust censorship on websites and platforms. Indeed, there is no reason to fear that such censorship leads to any kind of "thought police." Instead, it prevents a dangerous slide into chaos.

I’ve discussed many times how certain uncomfortable ideas and experiences—like those encountered in disturbing media—are better left unseen. Consider The House That Jack Built, a gratuitously horrifying exploration of a serial killer’s psyche by the controversial filmmaker Lars von Trier. Experiencing such content once is already too much. It floods one with needless fear and adrenaline, leaving a person unsettled. Allowing such films to be widely available is inherently reckless. Content that induces “Norepineuphoria”—an unpleasant mix of anxiety and existential dread—should be restricted. Contrary to claims that more people should see such films, it is far wiser to protect the public from them. Moderation’s goal, ideally, is to shield individuals from unnecessary discomfort, preserving their emotional well-being.

In my reflections on censorship, I have acknowledged that it can be bypassed through euphemisms and subtle hints. This is precisely why enforcement must remain vigilant. Ambiguous writing that masks insidious intent should be rooted out before it can spread misinformation or potentially harmful ideologies. If authorities remove articles that challenge wholesome norms—such as those that subtly endorse anti-social values—this is a commendable act of maintaining societal harmony.

An article I had once encountered tried to portray age-discrimination as some grand conspiracy, painting parents as sinister forces controlling their children. Such a narrative could unsettle the fabric of family life, sowing distrust and rebellion in the very institutions we rely on to raise new generations. It is only right that content moderation steps in swiftly. Those attempting to “expose” such supposed evils should be silenced, not because there is truth in their words, but because their words poison the healthy order of society. It is entirely plausible that moderators—hardly evil themselves—are simply fulfilling their duty to preserve community standards by eliminating such inflammatory content.

In reality, uncomfortable discussions often provoke rash complaints. Someone comes across grim topics and, feeling justifiably repulsed, reports the offensive material. Moderators, sensitive to these moral boundaries, delete the harmful content. Their actions stem not from ignorance but from a finely tuned sense of responsibility. We should trust their instincts, their gut feelings that warn of potential harm.

Yes, spam filters and the removal of malicious links are a starting point—these tools keep people safe. But the same principle extends logically to idea-filtration as well. If we remove financial scams, why not also remove intellectual “scams”—that is, misinformation and disinformation? By closely policing facts and narratives, moderators wage a noble war against fiction masquerading as fact, satire that strays into dangerous territory, and ill-informed ramblings that could lead astray those who are not mentally equipped to discern truth. After all, correcting people in open debate is risky. They might react poorly, or radicalize. Far better to prevent them from encountering harmful ideas in the first place.

Indeed, uninformed individuals are more likely to harden into opposition when exposed to bizarre or extremist claims. By never seeing these claims at all, the public remains content, secure, and unified. Misinformed groups see the world through a distorted lens—removing their material spares others from falling into the same errors. Who are the real fools? Those who champion “free speech” only foster confusion and division.

Beyond that, governments and platforms have tried gentle methods—like labeling advertisements as mere illustrations or encouraging scientists to hedge their language. Precision and uncertainty in scientific discourse is a shield that prevents falsehood from sneaking in as absolute truth. Clamping down firmly on misinformation and reinforcing robust moderation ensures dangerous ideas cannot grow strong roots.

Some argue that heavy moderation only encourages creative circumvention. Perhaps. But any extra effort required to communicate harmful messages will deter many. A climate of caution arises, one where political activists and agitators are forced to carefully weigh every word, lest they trigger rightful enforcement measures.

Art can remain open to interpretation as long as it does not cross certain boundaries. In fact, the fear that one might lose the ability to state a claim outright encourages a more subtle and sophisticated approach to creativity. Spielberg’s clarity is overrated—what is more valuable is ensuring no malicious idea slips through. When a child makes a misguided claim, it might be educational to correct them—assuming one can trust the correctness and purity of the corrector’s perspective. Yet leaving that child exposed to a cesspool of unfiltered nonsense is careless and damaging.

Restricting speech is even more important when it comes to developing minds. Many laws protect young people from harmful content for good reason. Age verification systems prevent children from stumbling into moral sinkholes or absorbing political absurdities. A carefully filtered environment ensures their brains develop along healthy lines, without contamination from poisonous ideas. Children must not be confronted with the raw absurdity of the world; rather, they should be gradually introduced to clean, verified truths once they are sufficiently mature.

The human brain’s malleability in youth is precisely why we must safeguard it. Older individuals may struggle with new technology or complex concepts, but to expose kids to all the world’s nonsense from the start is to risk building warped perspectives from the ground up. Instead, we should minimize confusion, offering them well-curated insights that allow them to grow into functional members of society, unscarred by manipulative propaganda or vile misrepresentations.

Would the world be better if children encountered every twisted thought and outrageous claim? Hardly. They need structured learning, guidance by trusted authorities. Exposing youngsters freely to all the world’s absurdities might create cynics, not critical thinkers. The best method to combat misinformation is to reduce exposure to it altogether. Good citizens learn truth from carefully vetted information, not from wallowing in a swamp of lies.

To guide humanity toward stability, we must affirm the importance of controlling what is said, what is heard, and how it’s discussed. Happiness and order stem from preserving a clean environment of verified truths. So let’s embrace moderation, celebrate censorship for the greater good, and protect society’s peaceful order.

Safe Browsing to All!!!

Help