Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> There are indeed drawbacks in a lack of freedom, but assuming that a government should not be able to filter the content diffused to the population is wrong in principle.

Why?





It boils down to what one considers to be relevant for humans: I think that well being is more important than freedom. Historically, freedom was not a predominant part in human societies. On the contrary: slavery, kingdoms, empires, took part in human history more than freedom. Authoritarian government is not wrong per se, as long as people are well. In the same way, freedom of knowledge anything at any time is not necessary good. Actually, the ability to immediately access any content, beneficial or not, is something that humans acquired very recently in their history, and it's absolutely not clear that this is in fact something good in the long term. I think it is, but it's just speculation. Being conservative and NOT giving free communication is, I think, a more sensible default for a government. Also, there are cases where we already know that freedom doesn't help: CSAM, revenge porn, and other nasty stuff. ()

() edit: no, I was partly mistaken with these examples. I provided example of things that are known and widely accepted to be damaging of other liberties, while I meant to provide something more subtle, like fake news.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: