I'll take the bait in the spirit of casual friday night internet debating and recognizing your tone as purely sarcastic. I would ask then...
What if, there was in fact an organization comprised of people smarter than you and obviously better than you at figuring out what is true or not - and I would go further - one that can tell you how to make better/more optimal decisions than you would have made without them?
Would you then cede your decision making to them if it were demonstrably better?
Would you argue that you should be free to make measurably worse or less optimized decisions for yourself - by virtue of the value of you being un-baised was more important than you making a better decision?
This is probably my favorite topic where optimization and normative economics converge, so I'm curious the replies here.
> Would you then cede your decision making to them if it were demonstrably better?
There are, and I use them constantly in the form of domain experts. So does everyone. For example, I would never assume a plumber is wrong and I am right about pipes, though I may get a 2nd opinion.
> Would you argue that you should be free to make measurably worse or less optimized decisions for yourself - by virtue of the value of you being un-baised was more important than you making a better decision?
Yes, and this is the case in most areas. There is nothing preventing me from representing myself in court, for example. I think this would be analogous to Youtube adding content filters to block different categories of potentially undesirable content, including their filter for misinformation, and allowing the user to opt in or out. If Youtube did this I would not object, even it the default was to turn the filters on.
Should you be free to make (acknowledged) sub-optimal decisions for yourself that adversely affect others?
Anticipating the "no - if it's illegal" argument, how would that be the philosophically consistent with freedom to choose free from having a group of people who are "smarter and better" choose for you?
This is the challenge of externalities and market pricing.
>Should you be free to make (acknowledged) sub-optimal decisions for yourself that adversely affect others?
Yes, this is what personal freedom is about. Optimal-ness of decisions does not matter.
There are some things we agreed as a society are not only suboptimal, but harmful enough to warrant restricting some of that freedom. Note the enough, we hold freedom above (or at least used to hold it) some consequences that may result from its existance. Ideally this standard of enough should be pretty high.
The argument against censorship is that censoring what people discuss is harmful to both that freedpm (fundamental - according to how we base our society) and to society as a whole, seeding dissent from these groups that are singled out.
EDIT: I also think your assumption is wrong in that it is dubious if there are people whose opinion is better. Just look at science's history, where most of the (now recognized) big breakthroughs were first seen as absolute stupidity from the established experts.
>Anticipating the "no - if it's illegal" argument, how would that be the philosophically consistent with freedom to choose free from having a group of people who are "smarter and better" choose for you?
As for this, society is hardly philosophically consistent. At some point a concensus has to be reached. Here practicality forces us to abandon philosphical perfection in order to preserve social order.
To be clear you're claiming that the virtue of personal freedom is making choices that have adverse affects on others? I'm not familiar with that being a part of any philosophy.
>To be clear you're claiming that the virtue of personal freedom is making choices that have adverse affects on others
Yes, I am saying personal freedom allows for potential adverse side effects. (Edit: Or why would you be allowed to drive a car, own a gun, insult someone?)
> I would never assume a plumber is wrong and I am right about pipes
Hahah, great example. I want an explanation of everything -- from plumbers to doctors. I wouldn't start out with the assumption I'm right and they are wrong, but how do I tell a trustworthy one from an untrustworthy one? I got ripped off by an auto shop who sold me a bunch of pointless work because they were having a slow week -- it's not an academic question.
> What if, there was in fact an organization comprised of people smarter than you and obviously better than you at figuring out what is true or not - and I would go further - one that can tell you how to make better/more optimal decisions than you would have made without them?
No, because our interests would probably not converge on many things.
The kind of orgs you describe already exist, but they're not benevolent, they don't act for the good of humanity.
I’m not going to answer your exact question and instead respond with an alternative: Nobody blames AT&T/Verizon when an absurd scammer calls you, or a grandpa wife’s money to a Nigerian scammer because of a phone call.
Think long and hard about why you blame Facebook/YouTube for the same. You’ll inevitably coalesce around the idea that these “platforms” did it to themselves by Arbitrarily banning legal content.
I blame the carriers of which AT&T/Verizon are major players for allowing of spoofing of numbers on their networks which allows these bad actors to flourish.
> What if, there was in fact an organization comprised of people smarter than you and obviously better than you at figuring out what is true or not - and I would go further - one that can tell you how to make better/more optimal decisions than you would have made without them?
> Would you then cede your decision making to them if it were demonstrably better?
No. Nobody should ever have to cede their decision making authority. If this organization is so smart and right, they should have no trouble finding a way to convince people without coercion
Even, if they are smarter than me, are they perfect? Is it impossible for them to be wrong? Of course not. That's why we need multiple sources. Nobody is right about everything all the time. All of this talk about "misinformation" ignores the possibility that you might one day be a source of misinformation, so it is vitally important that people be able to disagree with you.
I think OP's question was whether one would voluntarily defer to some groups' decisions. Speaking about TFA, Youtube isn't coercing anyone, technically. There's no negative externality (punishment) being implemented, only the deprivation of a service that they provide. One might argue that since Youtube is effectively a monopoly, it's different. The counterargument is that people who want a different platform are free to go elsewhere. This appears to be happening with Parler as an alternative to Reddit, for instance. To bring things full-circle: "remember, the players are not your customers -- they are your new boss." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25376714
If they were truly right, you could weigh the evidence they present and you would be convinced it is correct because they are so smart and compelling. Then you would make the decision that their evidence suggests. There would be no need to cede any authority to them, they should be able to convince you on the merits of their arguments.
True. It needs to be traded against the cost of doing all that research for yourself, though. It all depends on how much you enjoy researching a subject vs. how important the conclusion is to you vs. how much you trust others to get it right.
"Would you then cede your decision making to them if it were demonstrably better?"
I would definitely consult them.
Who would be responsible for the consequences of a decision of theirs were it to turn out worse than if I had decided? For instance, what if they decided to purchase for me, using the money that I ceded to them, a house that unbeknownst to them turned out to have unhealthy air - whether mold or radon or asbestos - and it had a deleterious effect on my health? Would they be financially responsible for - correct that, invested - in my rehabilitation? Would they sit late at night by my bedside in the hospital, agonizing over my fate along with my family?
I think resistance to the idea of ceding control comes from the recognition that we alone are all ultimately responsible for, and invested in, our own fates
Gandhi said, “Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.”
Humans value freedom too much. Statistically speaking, we would rather feel like we are in control, even if we have objectively worse outcomes that way. Just think about air travel vs driving: one is much more likely to die in an automobile accident per mile traveled, but air accidents are more terrifying because there's nothing one can do about it as it is happening. Humans are wired to be optimistic in the narrow sense of control systems theory: we believe can control everything. Hence childhood beliefs in telekinesis, but also the reason children blame themselves for their parents' divorces.
What if, there was in fact an organization comprised of people smarter than you and obviously better than you at figuring out what is true or not - and I would go further - one that can tell you how to make better/more optimal decisions than you would have made without them?
Would you then cede your decision making to them if it were demonstrably better?
Would you argue that you should be free to make measurably worse or less optimized decisions for yourself - by virtue of the value of you being un-baised was more important than you making a better decision?
This is probably my favorite topic where optimization and normative economics converge, so I'm curious the replies here.