A new study found that, on TikTok and Elon Musk's Twitter, nearly 3/4 of all partisan content being pushed algorithmically to German users favored the party best known for its ties to neo-Nazis.
What makes it tricky is, I think, that there are both kinds of voters so both viewpoints are kind of correct but piss the other side off with the implications.
E: typo
That’s probably a fair and nuanced take. Perhaps some voters are swayed by TikTok ads. I suppose I believe this contingent is small and inconsequential, while the person above believes it is large and consequential. Perhaps my perception is coloured by my belief in the principles of free speech. I think it is essential to the functioning of a democracy, and for science. Free speech only exists if we protect speech we don’t like. I grow very uneasy with equivocating over which political dissent is allowed. History has taught us that it is inevitably used for nefarious purposes eventually.
Popper’s paradox of tolerance gives in my view pretty clear guidelines on what to protect and what not to tolerate. I believe that if we held onto that, fascism would have a much harder time.
I am not an expert on political science, so I don’t know what the data tells us. The feeling I get from the world though is that the “impressionable” part is large enough to be consequential, in part because the “educated” part has already made up their minds.
It’s also not sufficient to talk specifically about ads in tiktok without considering them in the wider context of online messaging, all of which is going to be systemically tailored to feed into the same fears and shame.
Popper’s paradox of tolerance gives in my view pretty clear guidelines on what to protect and what not to tolerate. I believe that if we held onto that, fascism would have a much harder time.
Popper did make his line clear: physical violence.
“I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.”
So I agree with you. Tolerate up to the point of people using physical violence to enact their political aims.
I.e
I disagree; free speech only exists if we specifically reject speech that aims to suppress free speech, while accepting speech we don’t like but that doesn’t aim to suppress.
Can we do that? Can we draw the line? Why do so many believe there is no line to be drawn here?
What makes it tricky is, I think, that there are both kinds of voters so both viewpoints are kind of correct but piss the other side off with the implications. E: typo
That’s probably a fair and nuanced take. Perhaps some voters are swayed by TikTok ads. I suppose I believe this contingent is small and inconsequential, while the person above believes it is large and consequential. Perhaps my perception is coloured by my belief in the principles of free speech. I think it is essential to the functioning of a democracy, and for science. Free speech only exists if we protect speech we don’t like. I grow very uneasy with equivocating over which political dissent is allowed. History has taught us that it is inevitably used for nefarious purposes eventually.
Popper’s paradox of tolerance gives in my view pretty clear guidelines on what to protect and what not to tolerate. I believe that if we held onto that, fascism would have a much harder time.
I am not an expert on political science, so I don’t know what the data tells us. The feeling I get from the world though is that the “impressionable” part is large enough to be consequential, in part because the “educated” part has already made up their minds.
It’s also not sufficient to talk specifically about ads in tiktok without considering them in the wider context of online messaging, all of which is going to be systemically tailored to feed into the same fears and shame.
Popper did make his line clear: physical violence.
So I agree with you. Tolerate up to the point of people using physical violence to enact their political aims.
I.e I disagree; free speech only exists if we specifically reject speech that aims to suppress free speech, while accepting speech we don’t like but that doesn’t aim to suppress.
Can we do that? Can we draw the line? Why do so many believe there is no line to be drawn here?