4/ By contrast, the norm of "remove unreliable and/or harmful speech" is constantly vulnerable to the charge that it is being unfairly enforced, because the concepts of "unreliable/harmful" are inherently tied to the very ideological claims being contested in the speech forum itself.

/end

3/ The most plausible value of a "no-gatekeepers" norm is not that a free marketplace of ideas is rational but, rather, that violations of the norm are relatively easy to define and identify in an objective way. "Do not interfere with speech at all" has a pretty clear, hard-to-contest meaning.

2/ So the more fundamental problem at present is the concentration of power over the public forum, which makes gatekeeping inherently unreliable - at least in the long run - as a practice which promotes truth.

Oh whoops - the AI has branded this as "adult content"! Partial upper body nudity on the cover image...

3) Which is not to say that Biden is a bad guy for pardoning his son. I mean, maybe he is. But the problem is a system that creates the discretionary power to do this - and all of the Trumpian abuses of this power we are about to witness - in the first place.

2) There is no system that can completely avoid relying on the principle of "be ethical" (or at least "care about your ethical reputation") as a supplement to formal rules. But in this case the ratio of ethical expectations/formal procedural constraints seems badly calibrated to the times.

Thanks for doing this. Please add me.

Thank you. And you as well!

Please add me if there is room. Thank you!

Liberalism helps sustain epistemic trust by forcing people to articulate the reasons behind their beliefs, thereby enabling widespread credibility monitoring.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...