A_Muse_Mint101: Saw this posted on a friends page, curious how well it fits the logic of the larger set of secrets and withholding information willfully.
As in, would it be better or not if all secrets were removed from our experience? I tend to think so, played out. Fear of others is removed, because we know what they know and are thinking. Everyone broadcasting their lives simultaneously to each other would be a freaking nightmare to process given our current experience of the passing of time, alone.
No, not that far ahead, but where honesty and openness is the 'common sense'. Based on something like, if we all do better, I do better.
"What’s wrong with censoring information? Well, here are a few reasons for starters:
1) Censoring assumes a singular entity consisting of a small number of people is more equipped to decipher, understand, and vet information than millions of people.
2) Censoring assumes there is a large class of people unintelligent enough to review information and make their own decisions.
3) Censoring removes the power of open and transparent crowd-sourced peer-review, which normally serves to examine the veracity of data, and the conclusions drawn from such data, by using the advantage of different perspectives and experiences associated with countless people, thus stifling the intended purpose of such peer review, which is to define and understand the truth.
4) Censoring removes the responsibility and accountability normally owned by individuals who wish to be responsible for their own destiny, and transfers that power to another entity that may or may not have such individual’s best interests in mind.
5) Censoring centralizes control over information flow, rather than distributing it across a larger network, thereby profoundly increasing the probability of abuse and corruption to a near certainty.
6) Censoring conditions and trains people to abandon their ability to think, leading to a massive decline in the critical thinking skills of the entire population over time.
7) Censoring, by its very nature, sets up a system that fosters distrust and suspicion, due to the inevitability of critical thinkers who will question the motivation, trustworthiness, bias, and accountability of the self-appointed censoring organization. This will happen even if the censoring organization is unbiased and authentic in its motives.
8.) Censoring is a direct violation of, and an antithesis to, our right to the freedom of speech. Not only does it violate the right to the freedom of speech, it removes our freedom and right to have access to information connected to any non-classified topic.
9) Censoring is an insult to our intelligence, and takes away our right to make our own decisions.
10) Censoring is dehumanizing as it removes the individuality and autonomy of the human spirit."
FistOfStone: yeah, i think those points are much more compelling when they're retained as criticisms of censorship, and they lose their force when applied to the wider category of "the witholding of information in general" ... the moral imperative to be honest and the appeal of the "open book" person get their point from the general context in which there is witholding of all sorts of information ... to turn them onto the very context that gives them their point, by suggesting "absolute transparency," is like a cow that pulls at its hobble and falls onto its knees, to borrow an analogy from simone weil
and if i read correctly between your lines, this in turn suggests an analogous reply to the advocate for banning censorship ... i'm not sure the analogous reply is as devastating as the original observation, but it's a thoughtful and good reply imo
As in, would it be better or not if all secrets were removed from our experience? I tend to think so, played out. Fear of others is removed, because we know what they know and are thinking. Everyone broadcasting their lives simultaneously to each other would be a freaking nightmare to process given our current experience of the passing of time, alone.
No, not that far ahead, but where honesty and openness is the 'common sense'. Based on something like, if we all do better, I do better.
"What’s wrong with censoring information? Well, here are a few reasons for starters:
1) Censoring assumes a singular entity consisting of a small number of people is more equipped to decipher, understand, and vet information than millions of people.
2) Censoring assumes there is a large class of people unintelligent enough to review information and make their own decisions.
3) Censoring removes the power of open and transparent crowd-sourced peer-review, which normally serves to examine the veracity of data, and the conclusions drawn from such data, by using the advantage of different perspectives and experiences associated with countless people, thus stifling the intended purpose of such peer review, which is to define and understand the truth.
4) Censoring removes the responsibility and accountability normally owned by individuals who wish to be responsible for their own destiny, and transfers that power to another entity that may or may not have such individual’s best interests in mind.
5) Censoring centralizes control over information flow, rather than distributing it across a larger network, thereby profoundly increasing the probability of abuse and corruption to a near certainty.
6) Censoring conditions and trains people to abandon their ability to think, leading to a massive decline in the critical thinking skills of the entire population over time.
7) Censoring, by its very nature, sets up a system that fosters distrust and suspicion, due to the inevitability of critical thinkers who will question the motivation, trustworthiness, bias, and accountability of the self-appointed censoring organization. This will happen even if the censoring organization is unbiased and authentic in its motives.
8.) Censoring is a direct violation of, and an antithesis to, our right to the freedom of speech. Not only does it violate the right to the freedom of speech, it removes our freedom and right to have access to information connected to any non-classified topic.
9) Censoring is an insult to our intelligence, and takes away our right to make our own decisions.
10) Censoring is dehumanizing as it removes the individuality and autonomy of the human spirit."
and if i read correctly between your lines, this in turn suggests an analogous reply to the advocate for banning censorship ... i'm not sure the analogous reply is as devastating as the original observation, but it's a thoughtful and good reply imo