Not a free speech absolutist myself, but I lean pretty heavily towards answering "no extent" on the basis that I find it hard to even believe in the concept of information hazards.

A better question to ask isn't "if" but "how". Which can mean either nothing changes from now, or something that those not in power probably don't want.

>>113925
>I began thinking about this after learning of a particular place that encourages and celebrates self-harm to the extent of providing information, means, and validation. I have also for a long time been under the impression that mass media reporting on certain topics, such as mass shootings, naturally increases and tacitly encourages their prevalence.
For this reason it is illegal in my country for media to report that a person committed suicide. It is these days somewhat of a controversial law, given how much it is at odds with the current focus on being open about mental health issues and the like - from what I understand though, the evidence does support the idea that reporting on suicide leads to an uptick in cases, so for now at least the restriction remains (although it is hard to believe it matters much, given how obvious it is what actually happened when an article says that someone 'died suddenly' and a bunch of hotlines are linked at the bottom).

If states cared about infohazards they would've turned Lain into lost media

The weapon instructions one is interesting. I feel like that's one that should have some kind of restriction if only to stop a kid from stumbling on it and making a pipe bomb but I don't know what that restriction would look like. It's not like putting a "click to confirm you're over 18" prompt on www.anarchistcookbook.com would do anything.

It's hard to say because I can't really think of it being much of an issue. You get the odd case of a person like the one that killed Abe using information like that for it but it's rare and it could be said that if he did not do it that way he would have found another way or that stopping that information might be impossible as it's already out there and hard to ban from everywhere.
Where there is a will there is probably a way.

And then in regards to the US it's pointless to even talk about, the internet teaching people to make dodgy black powder shotguns is kind of moot when you can just go to the store and pick up an AR-15.

One of the things that cropped up in that realm alongside the kpop phenomenon is the concept of “ulzzangs,” or “best face.” It’s an overall beauty standard focusing on certain things like pale smooth skin, big eyes, long legs, a button nose, pouty pink/red lips, v-shaped jawline, and a casual sexy/cool wardrobe. Ulzzangs are people who become internet famous for having this look and I guess entering beauty contests online and some of them later become k-pop idols or actors or whatever I do not care. A big, big part of being an ulzzang is being extremely thin. There are whole websites cataloguing the daily diet and exercise habits of various korean pop stars and internet famous people and giving out tips for shedding the pounds. These include water fasts, eating only bananas, eating only as much as you can fit in a paper cup, eating only vegetables, and even that old standard of consuming only lemon juice, a small amount of maple syrup, and cayenne pepper in water for days. Infographics show what these pop singers allegedly eat daily while on a grueling exercise and dance rehearsal schedule. Exercise plans talk about how they work out for hours daily out no matter how bad they feel. The websites hold this up as a virtue and encourage young girls to do the same for guaranteed weight loss.
There’s lipservice paid to “East Asians have smaller frames so being underweight by our standards is fine for them” but they make no mistake that lower weight is desirable and even if your frame is big you should aim no higher than the lowest end of healthy for your height if you want to be a true ulzzang. They only sometimes refrain from openly calling their favorite pics “thinspo.”
My point is: these blogs are functionally indistinguishable from the initial pro-ana sites of yore, but somehow get a pass by social media censors and are easily accessible. All I had to do to find this info was type “ulzzangs diets” into a search engine. If I type in “pro-ana diets” I get a page after page of websites telling me this is a dangerous trend and warning me of dire things that will happen if I follow it, while the ulzzangs websites that pop up tell me it’s totally safe and healthy to follow exactly the same diet plans and that being underweight is a reasonable goal. I don’t really care if K-pop is what gets your eustachian tubes erect and I’m not interested in discussing the relative merits and deficiencies of mass-manufactured pop culture of any ethnic extraction. Is this what you think should be censored though?

>>113941
I don't think that diet is great but it's pretty much the same diet that bro-science tells you to eat if you want to get big.
Just take the milk, salad and sweet potatoes out and add creatine and change the times you eat it.

Pop Nutritional information is bad and always has been.

>>113942
Pro-ana content is not the same as the "chicken and brocolli to explain my roid body" thing

>>113943
>>113944
A lot of those make sense and it's not that unhealthy mostly, cutting carbs and processed food is a good idea and it even tells you not to crash diet.

The BMI part is problematic but even then, BMI is not a be all and end all.

In all, I think it's not terrible. But I can see that it could lead to potential issues with some people.

>>113941
>eating only bananas
don't see the problem with this

>>113942
bro-science tells you to eat 10x as much of it as the ulzzangs diet

thats security by obscurity and thats bad

>>113944
these tips give you good skin and low weight. Not much else. And fat tends to be more attractive if your genetics/hormones give you a good deposition location rather than dumping it all into the stomach.

Is Kuon an ulzzang

>>113965
no

>>113964
damn i should go on the ulzzangs diet

ulzzang mafia

she's not an ulzzang because she's got a lotta meat

>>113967
all you have to do to be healthy is drink 2L of water a day

nijigaoka mashiro is an ulzzang though

"Information hazard" sounds like bullshit a dictatorship uses to suppress dissent. I do not trust anyone who tries to seize the ability to shape my mind to have my best interests at heart. Censorship will always be used politically. Even if you genuinely believe you're using it benevolently, you're pushing your own beliefs and values on me when you make judgements on what I should and shouldn't know. If I want to cut myself then I have a right to do so. If you don't want me to starve myself, present a counterargument instead of just shutting up the people saying things you don't like.

I will never sacrifice freedom for feel-good headlines.

Especially since that term started as an internet horror meme (solar plexus clown gliders popularized it)

>>113975
Info-hazards are an actual danger, such as how to construct a pandemic from your own home should the tech we possess ever reach that level, or how to recreate some of the worst we've seen in human history from a lab. Other info hazards would also be stuff like what's in the classified docs about nuclear weapons since it could potentially endanger the lives of millions should the info on how to create a nuclear disaster become public.

In a sense there is a danger with how people regulate "info-hazards" as it could easily lead to suppression of speech, but there are some things that most people really shouldn't have access to.

>>113977
>should the info on how to create a nuclear disaster become public.

Isnt it already kind of public?

ulzzang is a new kissu word now

ulzzang sounds like something made up by sauron

In recent years, a new trend known as "ulzzang" has emerged and spread rapidly among teenage girls in South Korea and parts of Asia. Literally translated to "best face" in Korean, ulzzang refers to girls who devote tremendous effort into achieving a picture-perfect look through extensive use of makeup, skin lightening creams, plastic surgery, and meticulous editing of selfies. While appearing relatively harmless on the surface, the ulzzang phenomenon exhibits characteristics of an infohazard - information that can cause severe harm when spread unchecked.

One defining feature of an infohazard is its potential for cognitive entrenchment. Ulzzang culture promotes unrealistic, heavily altered physical standards of beauty that become increasingly difficult to rationalize away once exposed to. Through constant exposure on social media, edited ulzzang photos essentially "reshape" perceptions of attractiveness in viewers' minds over time. This leads many girls to feel deeply insecure about their own appearance in comparison. The cognitive effects seem designed to strongly reinforce continued observance and participation in ulzzang culture to ameliorate insecurities.

Another red flag is ulzzang's propensity to cause psychological and physical harm. Staking one's self-worth entirely on achieving artificial beauty ideals takes a severe toll on mental health. Rates of depression, eating disorders, and suicidal thoughts are disturbingly high among ulzzang enthusiasts. Some go to dangerous lengths like heavy cosmetic procedures or skin bleaching, risking disfigurement and toxicity in pursuit of the ulzzang look. When ulzzang content glorifies such harmful behaviors, it essentially spreads a contagion of self-objectification, dysmorphia, and trauma.

The viral spread of ulzzang media also poses issues. Curated Instagram and YouTube profiles of ulzzang icons attain hundreds of thousands of devotees, especially impressionable teenage girls. Edited photos and videos are optimized for high engagement and emotional resonance rather than factual accuracy. Combined with pervasive mobile connectivity, this enables ulzzang culture to spread its beauty standards and warp perceptions worldwide at blinding speed before rational deliberation can take place.

In conclusion, while superficially a fashion trend, the ulzzang phenomenon demonstrates hallmarks of an infohazard through its distortions of beauty, threats to well-being, and potential for rapid global propagation. More needs to be done to curb its cognitive and psychological influence, especially among vulnerable youth, and promote healthier body images. Overall, ulzzang culture serves as a cautionary example of how information uncontrolled online can significantly endanger impressionable minds.

The rise of social media and online fandoms has enabled the emergence of new subcultures centered around particular aesthetic ideals. In East Asia, one such subculture is ulzzang culture, which focuses on achieving beauty standards through intensive makeup, photography, and digital editing techniques. Though originating in South Korea, ulzzang culture has expanded its influence worldwide by leveraging online platforms. This reflects how it has become integrated into the broad sphere of global otaku fandom and consumption.

Ulzzang photography shares similarities with other niche online aesthetics like kawaii and Japanese idol culture that prize highly stylized, unattainable looks. By meticulously crafting idealized self-presentations, ulzzang icons fulfill otaku desires for escapism into fictionalized beauty. Their elaborate makeup tutorials and photoshoots portray an aestheticized fantasy world that attracts widespread engagement and fan worship comparable to idol stars. Ulzzang profiles cater to gratification of primarily male otaku gazes in a comparable way.

Social media is integral to ulzzang culture's otaku appeal and commercial success. Curated Instagram and YouTube accounts broadcast meticulously staged lifestyles to devoted followers. Digital self-beautification skills taught by ulzzang influencers likewise propagate across platforms and international borders. This has supported ulzzang culture's integration into a broader online marketplace of heartwarming kawaii content, Japanese idol culture, Korean pop culture influences like K-beauty, and general escapist entertainment for lonely male otaku worldwide.

As ulzzang aesthetic ideals spread transnationally, they borrow from and contribute to diverse East Asian pop culture influences within global otaku fandom online. While predominantly a niche Japanese subcultural force historically, "otaku" sensibilities today span extensive international fandom over varied anime, manga, idol, cosplay and aesthetics-focused subcultures online. In this context, ulzzang culture demonstrates how new aesthetic micro- subcultures centered on escapist fantasy and beauty emerge to engage otaku audiences globally through social media propagation and interconnected online communities. Ulzzangs illustrate the ongoing hybridization and globalization of online otaku spheres of interest.

zundamon's cuteness is an infohazard
it doesn't leave you

>>113976
>solar plexus clown gliders
i've never heard of that and i thought you were referring to the SCP wiki
>>113984
hope the Zundamon stand-alone complex results in her own anime

>>113925
Of course there are some things like cp that shouldn't be allowed. But generally speaking, I think that censoring information is not okay because who gets to decide what is good for me and what isn't? In my opinion, it's up to me as adult to decide what kind of information I want to consume. Similarly, it's up to me to decide what kinds of communities I want to be part of, and how I behave in online communities.

>>114040
I've seen and heard of some many people who went from fringe ideas into lunacy following the covid lockdowns. Not to also forget about how lots of parents are irresponsible and had kids out of impulse

>>114041
I would rather blame the panic and lockdowns/isolation instead of blaming Internet.

>>114040
Yet you seem to think it's self-evident that certain things should be censored. So who decides what information people should be allowed to make up their own minds on and what information they should just believe what they're told about? When should you be allowed to decide for yourself and when do you want others to decide for you? How do you know they're only restricting the information you wouldn't want to know?

>>114041
>I've seen and heard of some many people who went from fringe ideas into lunacy following the covid lockdowns.
Skill issue lmao

I think censorship is important, yes.
I am of the very firm belief that what people usually chalk up to stupidity is in reality a result of bad information and its interaction with our inherently flawed application of logic in our day to day lives.

We are all beholden to a laundry list of biases that constantly affects us and our decision making processes.
Survivorship bias makes salient, unrepresentative examples look common, making folks think they've got a shot at something where in reality the vast majority fail, anecdotal evidence stops people from doing something good or changing their habits just because of some flimsy first-hand experience, confirmation bias results in only taking into account what fits their previously held information, and insistent agents make falsehoods seem true through the repetition bias via simply making others familiar with a piece of info. Mobage are know to employ the anchoring effect, where they purposefully set high prices at first to make later ones seem cheaper and more attractive in comparison and extract more money out of people, just one of the many tricks they implement.

Using all of these and more, cults prey on vulnerable people going through bad times, telling them reassuring things, hooking them, and gradually drip feeding them their true beliefs because they know that if they dumped the whole thing at once it would seem completely ludicrous, all to get them to waste their savings on lies or become part of a suicide ritual. Myriad scammers, too, take people who hate their jobs, who are can barely make ends meet and are in financial straits, then promise them a way out but in reality simply rob them of what little they own. Pro-anorexia content has already been mentioned, I think we can agree that one's also really bad.
The anti-vaccines motherfucker manipulated vague results in order to profit off his new patent, and irresponsibly served as a base for the general anti-vaccines movement which did cause needless deaths even before the pandemic, to this day he continues to pander to it for the sake of more income. Or the alphabet soup's many cases of misdirection, doing things like leading people to waste their lives haphazardly searching for aliens with their attempts to hide a bunch of balloons, further contributing to the general erosion of public trust in scientific authorities.

And then there's the worst of the worst, murderous echo chambers that drown people in a biblical flood of misinformation to the point they end up building a bizzarro world in their minds that estranges them from their friends and family, becoming convinced they should shoot up a mosque in order to own teh kikes. The fall of 8chan was a tragedy, but it was also justified because 8/pol/ actually got people killed with their nazi retardation, and if your site produces corpses then action should be taken to stop that shit from happening again. We shouldn't need to talk about CP, either. It's axiomatically bad.

None of these are isolated incidents, it's loonies and bad faith actors constantly taking advantage of human nature. It's never going to change, it's never going to stop being a problem, and there's no way to get around it other than supplying people with correct information and punishing those who distribute harmful ideas, which do in fact exist and constantly impact hundreds of millions of lives. Ignoring it is irresponsible, especially if you later go on and pretend that every human being is capable of dealing with the infinite complexities of life by themselves, or worse yet, deserves to be harmed if they can't (see >>114062).

The inherent issue of who determines what's wrong and what's right is fundamentally the same issue as deciding who should be in charge, and if you're not going to address the problems of our power structures in general then that counter argument doesn't hold any water. The state is already acting in its own self-interest and determining what's good and bad for you in ways much more impactful than mere censorship, which has vast helping potential when applied to the things I've mentioned.

how do people develop this cynical of a view on humanity? it's not all of society's fault if a handful of people are stupid.

>>114085
I bet you think you're real smart.

>>114086
>think
i KNOW, thank you very much.

>>114083
This post is dangerous and should be taken down immediately. Censorship is axiomatically bad and we shouldn't need to talk about why. People are going to give up their rights without even knowing why because of people like this planting ideas in their poor little heads. Just because they can't comprehend how they're being manipulated doesn't mean we should take away their freedom. Entire generations will be robbed of the chance to decide what they believe because their ancestors decided they shouldn't be allowed access to the means to consider the issue. Think of the stupid people! Think of the children!

Without freedom of information people would lose the very basis for choosing their leaders. Win one election/war and you can just declare all other parties dangerous and ban criticism of yourself as dangerous to the state and the people's will. Then ban all the historical examples of this practice leading to millions of deaths so people don't lose faith in the benevolent protection of their democratically elected leaders.

>>114093
You're taking a real problem and brushing it away by extrapolating a solution to its worst possible extreme without even understanding the situation.
Cracking down on actually existing harmful misinformation doesn't lead to nazi book burnings. It's the other way around, totalitarian governments use censorship after they gain power, at which point censorship is only one of the many measures they take, several of which are much worse.

>>114083
Thank you for this well-reasoned response, Anonymous.

>The state is already acting in its own self-interest and determining what's good and bad for you in ways much more impactful than mere censorship
I was thinking about this issue a bit more and this made me think about how various industries exercise forms of self-censorship, such as new organizations abiding by journalistic ethics, or more banally, the various ratings agencies such as the ESRB and PEGI establishing age ratings for video games. When thinking about the internet, and the various reactionary anti-intellectual movements, despite the adage, "Not everything you see on the internet is true," I think these movements suffer from a dangerous form of confirmation bias precisely because the internet allows anyone and everyone to spread their own viewpoints; likewise, rarely is it the case that even credible independent sources of information are trained in journalistic ethics. For example, several months ago it came to light that a well-respected VR leaker, SadlyItsBradly, had paid one of his sources for information. He claimed that he did not realize this violated journalistic ethics and claimed that he himself had not offered money in exchange for the information, but was solicited for the information in exchange for it. Recently, there was also the case of Gamer's Nexus not reaching out to LinusTechTips for comment on their expose piece, however, GN responded to this by saying that LTT had a history of spinning narratives, and that they were no more required to reach out for comment in this circumstance than they were in their reporting when doing secret shopper content.

More abstractly, in various professions there is often a necessity to teach correct information at the expense of incorrect, historical information. You often see this with various conspiracy theories where said conspiracy theorists will claim to know, "suppressed information," when in reality what they're talking about is just wrong. For example, you often see this in various "alternative medicine" groups, such as those focused around essential oils. These people will refer to the historical usage of certain plant extracts, and then attempt to self-medicate using these oils instead of relying on modern medicine.

>there's no way to get around it other than supplying people with correct information and punishing those who distribute harmful ideas
I agree, but I find this a hard line to maneuver, especially in the era of the internet. I think things have become increasingly murky regarding the balance between free speech and misinformation because the primary platforms of discussion online are not held to the same first amendment protections because there are no stipulations about censorship by private entities. So, on the one hand, there exists real and practical forms of countering misinformation, but to the broader public these seem like an infringement on their first amendment protections. On the other hand, government-sponsored public education campaigns themselves often get maligned due to poor communication, which then sows mistrust in authoritative sources. This was a particularly a large issue during the pandemic, as you mentioned; early on, there were claims made by public health officials that, "masks don't work" in a cynical attempt to preserve masks for healthcare workers, and then later on when masks became more available there was a push for everyone to start wearing masks, but this disconnect between the truth and what said instead furthered public distrust of public health officials.

>>114093
This is obviously hyperbolic, but I think you're missing their point. The end goal isn't censorship, but how to get correct information to people, in recognition of the fact that many people may cling to information that is objectively incorrect and dangerous to themselves and others.

Did you have to use the effiacy of masks as an example?

>>114094
>It's the other way around, totalitarian governments use censorship after they gain power, at which point censorship is only one of the many measures they take, several of which are much worse.
This lead to the concept of the, "paradox of tolerance." That a society which is unilaterally accepting of all speech may eventually come to be dominated by those who would restrict speech. In essence, it also the corollary of the doctrine of free speech, that although one might have a right to free speech, this does not imply a right not to be retaliated against for said speech. Hate speech being one such example, although rarely invoked legally in places such as the United States unless there is a real and credible threat of direct violence a person or place.

Singing this song can get you arrested in Scotland

>>114096
It was a point about contradictory science communication leading public mistrust. In recent years due to political polarization there are rarely more concrete examples that have themselves not also become political matters. You have to look no further than discourse on climate change to recognize this. To find other examples you must go further back, such as the Three Mile Island accident which was plagued by poor science communication, and in turn lead to widespread mistrust of nuclear energy.

>>114095
>but I think you're missing their point. The end goal isn't censorship
That's not true. OP said:
>there's no way to get around it other than supplying people with correct information and punishing those who distribute harmful ideas
In other words, there's no way to get around it other than censorship, and a powerful state propaganda machine isn't enough to overwhelm these solo social media campaigns.

>>114083
>The inherent issue of who determines what's wrong and what's right is fundamentally the same issue as deciding who should be in charge, and if you're not going to address the problems of our power structures in general then that counter argument doesn't hold any water.
we already have a problem so it's ok if we add another similiar problem to it? what?

>>114094
And the only way to prevent those worse things is to protect the flow of information so that the government can be held accountable for its actions by the people. Even military secrets need to eventually be declassified precisely because of how crucial it is that the people have the basis to judge for themselves whether their leaders were justified. Why do you think people should ignore the worst possible abuses of authority before handing it over? Especially when those abuses have really been used in the past?

You fight harmful misinformation by providing true information and letting people make up their own minds. In order to know whether information is good or harmful, it needs to be accessible. You can slap a warning label on things saying to take them with a grain of salt, but you have to allow the information to still be there so that informed debate on the issue can continue without being replaced by blind traditionalism. There is no issue for which that informed debate is not necessary.

>>114100
This is a slippery slope, but at what point do you think someone should be held liable for their speech? The classic example is speech that leads to public endangerment, such as shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. What about other circumstances? If someone online spreads a "challenge" that will likely lead to injury, such as the "cinnamon challenge" which leads to scarring of the lung tissue, or the "tide pod challenge", which lead to chemical injury, do you think the person spreading these claims should not be held liable for their speech? How many people have to be credibly injured before first amendment protections no longer apply? I think online challenges are an apt point to focus on because no single person can be determined to have been entirely at fault for any given person who might be injured. On the contrary, where injury can be found to have originated from a single source, often victims are able to sue for legal damages as a result of said person's speech; the case of Sandy Hook families v Alex Jones comes to mind wherein the families were able to sue on the grounds of defamation on the basis of continued harassment. There was also the case of George Tiller, the "baby killer", who was assassinated by an anti-abortion activist after media attention on Tiller for performing abortions. To say that there was no component of reporting which lead to his assassination, I think is disingenuous, but at the same time I think it would be a miscarriage of justice for any one person to be tried on the basis of their political speech.

This is a very complex political issue made more complex by the ease at which people are able to spread diverse viewpoints, as well as information that can result in injury to oneself or others. There has not been any attempt online at implementing similar regulation on reporting as existed on radio and television, such as the FCC fairness doctrine, so it is largely at the behest of private entities to curtail harmful information or misinformation -- this is one of the key points about Section 230, as it allows online platforms in the United States to not be held liable for the speech and actions of their users with the stipulation that they make every attempt to moderate their platforms.

the kuon challenge

>>114103
All of your examples are explained by this requirement: whether they have a clear target or not. The target can be multiple persons, for example, the number of persons involved in a class action lawsuit can be huge, but still is a limited scope.

None of those so-called "information hazards" satisfy this requirement. Spreading such information is analogous to selling kitchen knifes: both of these things can be used to cause harm, but the act of distributing them has no victim.

You might be thinking here, "what about firearms"? But it can be argued that the ultimate aim of prohibition of all sales of firearms is not about reducing harm: kitchen knifes and motor vehicles can be as deadly, and they will be used instead if someone is highly motivated to commit a crime. If these "information hazards" are banned in the future, it won't be about reducing harm either.

>>114095
>The end goal isn't censorship
You're right. Censorship isn't an end, it's a means. And the thing about means is that they can be used to many different ends. The authority to declare information as "objectively incorrect" is too powerful to be entrusted to any entity.

>there is often a necessity to teach correct information
And what is correct isn't always right. Top-down political pressure and unquestioning adherence to established knowledge can and does lead to falsehoods being taught as the objective truth. The academic communities you want people to have faith in are based around the concept of eternally questioning each other and testing alternate possibilities. An innocuous example would be that saying there are 8 planets in the solar system 20 years ago would be universally considered false, but today it's factually correct. If we had censored talk of the wrong opinion, we never would have arrived at what is now considered the correct truth. Astronomical classifications obviously aren't exactly dangerous to people, but the same resistance you saw around that has also occurred with new ideas in fields like cancer research where vested interest in the established "truth" has slowed down progress by marginalizing new ideas that challenge them.

It's easy to think that the things you know are the truth and the things other people are pushing are false, and often that is the case, but you can't assume that. We need to verify or debunk, not suppress, information because otherwise all those "suppressed information" arguments become infinitely more convincing.

>>114106
>If we had censored
Again, not talking about censorship. You said that.

>>114107
Then what are you talking about? How are you proposing we stamp out "false" or "dangerous" information without impeding its circulation?

Marine ERPing with her audience should be censored

t*bers should be censored

Okay, so, take this as a general reply to all the previous posts:

If truth could win on its own, the anti-vaccines movement wouldn't exist. It's too ridiculous, it doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.
A lot of shit went down during the lockdowns and there's a lot to debate there, there's also a lot to debate about the role of big pharma too, but something as crazy as being against ALL vaccines? There's not a grain of truth to it, it harms the general population, it's even brought back diseases that should've been erradicated. There's plenty of material explaining the reality of it with tens of millions of views, there's debates, there's public campaigns, and yet it's not going away, is it? What else are you going to, distribute fliers? It's not panning out.

Now, what you do, first and foremost, is NOT give any involved entity carte blanche to erase whatever they want, nor do you base it on something like "public morals" like other standards did before. You set up a commission to do a thorough investigation of not only the international scientific consensus but also damages incurred, and only then do you allow supression of that particular subject. You also have to allow for appeals in case the wrong thing gets censored, because realistically that'll happen at some point. But something like anti-vaxxing needs to be eliminated. It's not a political matter, and it's not relative, it is indeed objectively correct.

The idea that certain things should be censored doesn't automatically mean I want to impose my ideology on others. People should be free to hold their own beliefs. But fabricating and spreading falsehoods, especially with the intent of stealing people's money as it factually happened with the original autism study, should not be allowed. It's almost a literal plague at this point, and we wouldn't be debating how to deal with this real and serious issue if it had been prosecuted a decade ago. If censorship is such a powerful thing that can destroy people's ability to think, then it would've been effective, no?

As for my previous comment about power structures, here's the thing: if you apply the current logic that censorship will instantly be used as tool of oppression by the state, then what do you make of something like the police force? It can and has been used to directly kill and jail plenty of innocent people all over the world throughout history, and that's quite a bit more impactful than censorship. Yet, unless you're some sort of anarchist, we can agree that we do need a police force because there are crimes which need to be cracked down upon. You have to punish someone for murdering a person, just like you should punish those spreading the collectively suicidal anti-vaccine narrative, which again, has in fact led to needless deaths. Assuming the worst scenario imaginable is an argument not against censorship, but against the state itself.

So, at an ideal level, the usage of censorship would be limited to objectively harmful information which we have seen has not and effectively cannot be defeated by free debate. At a realistic level, censorship is in reality secondary to the general abuses committed by a government, and the free flow of information won't undo all those heinous acts. The truth that Saddam did not have any WMDs becoming public didn't magically cancel out all of the damages caused by the Iraq War. It didn't fix a single thing over there.
The free flow of information isn't a fantastical and wholly good thing that'll always benefit the good guys, nor is any form of censorship literally 1984. That's just not how things are.

As a final note, intelligence is not your ability to be correct. It's a set of proficiencies, and smart people who are wrong can make sound arguments for things that aren't true. They're not immune to propaganda, neither are you nor I. But if we get enough professionals together with the right setup, then we can do something about it. That's when the flow of information really does help, when people are equipped to make sense of it and apply it correctly.

>>114112
I understand the logic behind that but such a thing can also risk causing more damage than good.

Anti-Vaxers are a symptom of a greater issue and and that issue is a lack of trust in authority. They don't trust what science says anyway and assume there are ulterior motives and if society acts against them they will take that as further justification that they are right and that society is not to be trusted.
It's trying to use logic to win an emotional argument, it's never going to work.

99.99% of people believe vaccines are effective. They are not at serious risk of being harmed by someone else not being vaccinated. They can also actively discriminate against the unvaccinated when they believe it is to their benefit. The pro-vaccine information has been effective.

Any time one group believes something and tries to have their truth triumph over another group's truth, it is a political matter. Governments will always be influenced by politics.

The police are dangerous and need to be held accountable to the civilian populace. They can only be held accountable through the open disclosure of their actions. Censorship is also dangerous and becomes even more dangerous when put in the hands of already dangerous entities.

If someone spreads misinformation that causes you direct harm, you can go sue them for damages, but attempting to force others to comply with what you believe the truth to be is pushing your own ideology onto them. There is no viewpoint that NEEDS to be eliminated and there certainly is no viewpoint that deserves to go unchallenged.

If a handful of retards want to bet their lives on some dumbass idea for whatever reason, that's their right as human beings. It's not our job to protect them from themselves, nor do we have the right to force our beliefs on them. And once in a blue moon those retards turn out to have a point and we all benefit.

>>114115
>It's not our job to protect them from themselves
Seat belts.

>>114110
Something we can all agree on

>>114083
>Ignoring it is irresponsible
I view the idea of burying information on 'social consciousness' grounds as outdated as the moral imperative of the state described by Eugenicists.
You presuppose your curative actions will result in what you consider good. The ends aren't merely not justified by the means, but rather your ends are a non sequitur that your means will never arrive at.

Curating the human race won't result in Nietzschean Supermen anymore than your proscriptions on information will result in a high trust society.

>>118474
Information is not value neutral. There is a moral imperative for correctness because of the real impact it has upon the lives of others. There's a reason journalistic ethics exists. There's a reason why professional organizations seek standardization. There's a reason why public education exists.

You own preconceived biases are blinding you of the fact that every organization practices its own form of self-censorship and have contorted yourself into some asinine reactionary take on eugenics.

>>118476
People being born with birth defects also impacts the lives of others. Journalistic ethics exist to maintain the bare minimum public trust to keep people buying their products. Standardization is sought because it has practical, economic benefits. Public education exists to generate human resources suitable to a highly-specialized workforce. Organizations practice self-censorship because it is in their own benefit to prevent certain ideas from spreading and because they are in a position to decide what is "correct" in that space. Give that power to a third party with different aims or values and none of them will support this "moral imperative."

>>118474
>Eugenicists
It's not an apt comparison. Eugenics are, first and foremost, wrong at a scientific level. The people who advocate for that kind of thing typically fail to understand just how similar the human genome is across the entire species, and believe that you can artificially weed autism away when its causes aren't all that clear in the first place. They justified it through "scientific" racism and phrenology, warning others of imminent biological degeneration. None of it is true.

On the other hand, information is what informs one's actions, immediately. If you're inside a burning building looking for the exit and someone tells you it's to the left, you're going to run in that direction. And if they were wrong or lied to you, they're causing you tangible harm. If someone else knows it's bad information and they care about you, they're going to correct it. It's not only important to both propagate and crack down upon information as needed, it's the entire point of communication. It's why we have language, to convey this.
The Egyptians who erased Akhenaton from history thousands of years ago had no relation to other forms of censorship like that of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum or nazi book burnings, negative information control was agnostically used to meet certain ends, and will forever be used just like any other application of force. Even democracies have to deal with the paradox of tolerance, not even anarchists can escape it.

>You presuppose your curative actions will result in what you consider good. The ends aren't merely not justified by the means, but rather your ends are a non sequitur that your means will never arrive at.
And this is something you could direct at literally any kind of political decision, even inaction itself.

>>118479
>Organizations practice self-censorship because it is in their own benefit to prevent certain ideas from spreading and because they are in a position to decide what is "correct" in that space.
Why are they able to decide that, and how doesn't that apply to any organization at any scale? By justifying practices for their benefit and then stating censorship has benefits too, you're attacking your own argument. Doesn't matter if it's self- or otherwise.

>>118483
The argument is that censorship can be beneficial to you when you or someone with the same interests as you is controlling what is censored and harmful when it is controlled by someone with interests opposed to yours.

>>113925
I think infohazards aren't the root issue. The problem lies in ignorance and lack of thinking on the part of people who come across such media. The internet is always going to have taboo, bad, or harmful information and there's nothing you can do about it. What we can do about it is educate people on how to handle that information safely, the most important is how to think for yourself. To a well adjusted mind with a decent moral compass who can digest this information won't be shaken by this knowledge, recognizing the words on the screen as just words and are unlikely to listen to the voices and let the intrusive thoughts win.
The dangers of infohazards are most realized in those who are unstable, skewed to an ideology, and overall unable to think and introspect themselves. A guide on making weapons could be exploited by a political extremist teetering on the edge of snapping such as Abe as >>113940 mentioned. Self-harm infohazards prey upon ill minds and weakens their reasoning barrier by persuasion and making such methods easy. Increased awareness of tragic events perpetuated by ill minds (or what glows green but that's a different topic) can spur other vulnerable people to do the same like a giant web of peer pressure. There's also things perpetuated by media and certain political ends that advocate for HRT and questioning your sexuality; it is fine to introspect and question yourself, but it only works when you come to the answer yourself, not exploited by their "correct" answer being forced upon you. Children are especially vulnerable.
I for one think that children should be sheltered from the internet and politics because they are simply too young and don't know any better. Let them gestate a little before letting them fly the coop with the tools they need to sort information. These tools are something that a lot of adults are lacking unfortunately. Children need time to grow and establish themselves as an individual, being told what to think by their schools and social media doesn't create individuals, it creates lemmings who don't know any better and become political statistics. They have been "disarmed" from their ability to think and question.
On the other hand if you think about it, if you've failed to learn *how* to think and that eating laundry detergent sounds like a good idea, then maybe dying via tide-pod or playing chicken with putting a gun to your balls is for the best and removes you from the gene pool.

The ability to introspect is powerful, and the ability to question our environment makes us Human.

Adding a level of 'personal' is another story. >>114103 mentions a retard yelling fire in a movie theater. This is a different case as now someone is crying wolf and preying on everyone's instinct of self preservation, and crisis and panic management is a skill very few people possess. It ends in injuries as people rush to leave and escape the danger because no sensible person wants to stick around to verify. Same thing as pulling a fire alarm for shits and giggles, or to paraphrase >>118483, misleading someone in danger with lies. This isn't an expression of speech, it's malicious action that places a perceived or real danger onto you and is/should be criminalized. As opposed to seeing things online—in the comfort of your own home—which no one is forcing you to act upon. No one is forcing you to choke on cinnamon, no one is stuffing tide-pods into your mouth, it is the fault of the victim in this case since it's self inflicted. Of course these personal threats can happen online as well. Someone sending death threats or people to harass you is harmful and the perpetrator should be held responsible. The alex jones sandy hook thing is another good example where it's personal, though there's some caveats to consider. Alex is a celebrity with influence, things he says will affect people and as such he must be held to a higher level of accountability for his actions. If what his speech was said by an anon or some literal who online, then who cares, it has no substance or power backing it and can't harm you unless you let it. Unless… The things you say run away and go viral. The Storm Area 51 raid is a good example of a joke going viral and the masses acted on it. It lead to a handful of arrests, a car accident, and local governments spending time and money to prepare for trouble. Should the guy be held accountable? What if more people came and went through with rushing the base and failed to outrun the bullets? Can the people who poured money into this expecting a profit sue him for lost profits? At what point does calling it a joke out of control stop absolving you of responsibility? Who determines whether some text is satire or a serious call to arms?

>>118488
>children should be sheltered
>being told what to think by their schools and social media doesn't create individuals, it creates lemmings who don't know any better and become political statistics
These are contradictory. A sheltered upbringing limits your available knowledge to the point where you just have to go along with what people tell you, or if you do try to break out you're totally unprepared for it. Good parenting is key to providing a safety rail as they get exposed to new, potentially dangerous ideas, but even without that the ability of a person to harm themselves, intentionally or not, increases dramatically with age.

>>118491
By sheltered I don't mean it in its entirety. I don't want to withhold knowledge, rather I just want them to not see the wackos until they have a grasp on what normal is supposed to be. You teach them your views and morals before others. Sure it's hypocritical, but what else are you supposed to do? Letting them learn a dozen conflicting views and expose them to ideologies before they have a solid understanding on what death is just doesn't feel right.
I agree with you on good parenting, context information is important and you just don't get that from exploring the internet by yourself, you need to be there with them providing this safety rail and answering and elaborating on questions they ask. The internet can be a soapbox for a minority to seem larger than it actually is, and the deluge of garbage on social medias like tiktok and twitter can make it seem like that is normal and expected, without context—i.e. not knowing any better—they could believe that's normal and try mimicking it as children are want to do because they want to fit in and be accepted. Teaching common sense also goes a long way in keeping their head on straight.

The schooling thing is from my own experience growing up and the public school I went to, it's all anecdotal and I understand that not every school is like this. Short and simple they didn't want to teach children to be well adjusted adults capable of caring for themselves, they wanted to prepare you for a desk job where you don't have ambition and bow to authority. Keep your head down, don't ask questions, and go ask your parents to teach you cursive, how to use tools, cook, etc. because we cut home economics and shop classes from the curriculum to siphon more funding to our board of directors.