dieterrams2

> Mill's main reason for conceding an exception to the freedom of speech wasn't the falsehood of the speech,

I didn’t say it was his main concern?

Mill’s reasoning ultimately rests on what principles he believes would result in the best outcome, from a utilitarian perspective. The point I’m making is that he wasn’t some free speech absolutist, but that an assessment of harm/utility undergirds his thinking, and that the different media environment would be something Mill would have to grapple with. And it could lead to an exception.

> I disagree? That's a difficult criticism to respond to given it's vagueness: like trying to put fog in a box. You could criticize Ben for his lack of originality, but I think there is value in reiterating a truth, even an obvious truth, in a clear and persuasive manner.

> As for his thoughtfulness, are you perhaps just nonplussed that he sounds more certain of his convictions than you think he should be? Outside specific criticisms of his arguments, I'd have to say his position seems well thought out. I'd say that even if I thought he was wrong.

You seem more concerned with defending Ben than thinking through what needs to be considered in this issue. Which is fine, I guess, but whether Ben has done an admirable job or not isn’t really what I care about.

I only reference the article for its quote from Mill, in which truth-value is a concern in a situation Mill happened to think warranted the suppression of falsehoods.

Since Mill ultimately justified his beliefs in terms of utilitarianism, I do think the echo-chamber effect of social media and the proliferation of fake news would make him rethink things.

Of course, what matters isn't so much what Mill would think (we could speculate all day over what conclusions he would come to), but what the best social policy is. And while Ben cites the usual opinions on the subject, I don't think he's made a sufficient effort to grapple with the different media/discourse environment we live in today. That doesn't mean he must necessarily come to a different conclusion, but it's a mistake not to give it more consideration.

igammarays' comment says what I didn't have time to say: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21455211

I don't necessarily think this invalidates Mill's points, but Mill believed in exceptions[1], and the dynamics of discourse on social media today would likely give him pause.

1. https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bul...

Political discourse, in Mill's time, was a very different beast than it is today.

You’re crediting capitalism with solving the very problems it created.

If you play poker, you know that, for any given hand, you can make the right play but still lose. But you’ll come out net positive by repeatedly making the right play.

You don’t get to play as many hands in your career as you do in a session of poker, so if you’re optimizing for income, generally speaking you should go for a job that gives you the highest guaranteed income rather than work for startups with, say, 1% odds of netting you significantly more than you would get at FAANG, for example.

Hindsight is 20/20. It’s all about what the right decision was with the information available to you at the time, not what decision would’ve had the best outcome in retrospect.