Twitter Co-Founder Apolgizes for Trump

[Dill]

(05-27-2017, 08:13 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: You

But if it makes you feel better, I wouldn't trust anyone in being the arbiter of what's okay and  who should or should not be given a platform. This is my whole beef with language and discussions about bad soeech, Who decides what's bad  and what isn't?

Well, I have a few more thoughts on the subject.

Let's assume there are standards and competencies that can be determined. E.g., we can tell that some people's math skills are better than other people's. Some know history better than others. Some are more literate; some are more media and science literate. Some appear to have the greater good or "truth" in mind when judging posts, as opposed to personal or sectarian interest. What would be the harm in holding such competencies up as key to what's bad or good? When competencies are valued, that usually entails that one support judgments with reasons, evidence, and logic which are not "personal" but, like mathematical operations, can be analyzed and checked. This is done at all levels of the education system. Imagine a teacher trying to grade tests while unable to tell good from bad answers? Imagine if a school board cannot decide what courses should be taught? Why should people who know education be the arbiters?

This emphasis on standards and competencies becomes difficult at the political level, because people dispute some competencies. E.g., think of the conflict over evolution and creationism, and over climate change. Think of Trump challenging the FBI CIA assessments of Russian interference.  But if we aren't able to tell which ideas or posts or "good" and which "bad", then it is pretty hard to maintain our present political system and standard of living, much less advance it.  So we should not give up on the idea of "arbiters."

 Imagine what happens when there are no standards and competencies--no arbiters. The student's opinion of what's a right answer is as good as the teacher's. Trump's word on climate change is as good as a climate scientist's. Marx famously asked "Who will teach the teachers." In this case, that is something that can be agreed on partly in public discussion and partly by relying on experts--people with a lot knowledge and experience in the education field.  People without certain competencies might feel empowered--the equal of those who truly have them. No one could tell or show them different.

After asking the question "who get's to decide?" we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and then ignore the problem. We ought to recognize the need for competence and the social authority it should give people to decide good from bad on social media--just as editors of newspapers do everyday. This would be a problem if there were only one media platform controlled by the government or one corporation. The alternative, let all platform's flourish, creates the problem we are discussing on this thread, the balkanization of the public sphere into various bubbles with alternative realities, and trolls. But I think that problem could be managed somewhat at the level of public education--less emphasis in the curriculum on "job skills" and more on media competency, social history and science literacy.