One of the ideas mentioned was that "ideas lead to real world events". This is true of all ideas. There are millions of tweets right now that are encouraging Ukrainians to kill Russians, other countries to get involved and kill Russians and escalate the war and get more Ukrainians and Russians killed. According to Yishan, these tweets should all be removed because they are dangerous, yet they are not removed.
Danger isn't bad, it is life. Maybe words on the internet will lead to a murderous government being violently overthrown. Who knows. It all goes back to a bunch of elitists determining which ideas should be visible, and therefore which violent and non-violent events occur. They are playing god with the world, and it is their own best interests that will be served, whether consciously or subconsciously.
Essentially, Yishan is arguing for real-life thought-police, and he is doing this because he probably did this at Reddit and needs to quell his cognitive dissonance. If somebody does something illegal in real life, arrest them. Until then, they must be allowed to discuss ideas that could lead to real life harm, theoretically. This is because there is no such thing as "we have removed all the posts that could lead to harm". It is like the "you can't talk about immigrants taking jobs because people will attack immigrants". What about the theoretical people who lose their jobs? There are always two sides, even when you are blocking the "harmful post", you are silencing someone else and creating harm.
Silencing particular groups is a great policy for those in power, because they can enact changes without pushback. Real life harm like "house prices so high I have to live with my parents at 50" will not be considered harm, but the pushback against ideas that lead to this situation might. There is no perfect utopia where everyone is at peace, there are just people trying to take resources from other people. That is the nature of life, and tech CEOs pretend this isn't the case for convenience reasons.
Danger isn't bad, it is life. Maybe words on the internet will lead to a murderous government being violently overthrown. Who knows. It all goes back to a bunch of elitists determining which ideas should be visible, and therefore which violent and non-violent events occur. They are playing god with the world, and it is their own best interests that will be served, whether consciously or subconsciously.
Essentially, Yishan is arguing for real-life thought-police, and he is doing this because he probably did this at Reddit and needs to quell his cognitive dissonance. If somebody does something illegal in real life, arrest them. Until then, they must be allowed to discuss ideas that could lead to real life harm, theoretically. This is because there is no such thing as "we have removed all the posts that could lead to harm". It is like the "you can't talk about immigrants taking jobs because people will attack immigrants". What about the theoretical people who lose their jobs? There are always two sides, even when you are blocking the "harmful post", you are silencing someone else and creating harm.
Silencing particular groups is a great policy for those in power, because they can enact changes without pushback. Real life harm like "house prices so high I have to live with my parents at 50" will not be considered harm, but the pushback against ideas that lead to this situation might. There is no perfect utopia where everyone is at peace, there are just people trying to take resources from other people. That is the nature of life, and tech CEOs pretend this isn't the case for convenience reasons.