Then someone with a bunch of bots spams this board with "opposing ideas," being obtuse in their arguments to defend it, and it drives people away.
I addressed this "hypothetical" specifically by suggesting that banning AIs was a good thing. You are creating an orange to compare to my apple.
One of the most effective ways of arguing with intent to harm is to simply ignore arguments against yours.
And people will come along and see the argument and will be able to think for themselves whether or not any point has been sufficiently defended. There is no need to censor under such nebulous circumstances.
Trying to catch all these "maybe they have bad intent" people will certainly catch people who don't. Any such "accidental casualty" will be a greater harm to the community and the GA as a whole. Will any positive effect occur from such a tactic? If someone wishes to do harm, though it's not really that easy to be sure they mean to do harm, and their argument is rebutted in debate, the argument has been seen. It doesn't matter what their intent is; the particular argument or tactic has been exposed. The community as a whole is improved.
There is nothing to be gained by censorship except in cases that are (actually) obvious. If we don't trust people to learn how to counter such subversive agents as you hypothesize, how can we possibly have a GA? That is the entire point of the GA.
A certain number of people will, and a certain number of people won't.
And that is the necessary lesson of the GA. I assert The Argument Will Out. You seem to believe that we need overlords protecting us.
This is a fundamental difference between our viewpoints, and I suggest also a fundamental lesson of the GA. Overlords/protectors, are not the path. One of the primary lessons of the GA is to learn to think for ourselves; to be our own agents in life. If we can't learn that here where we have support and people engaged in an honest attempt to route it out, where better is there?
It is important that we do set some spaces aside where the regular individuals in our society can find respite from the battle.
I suggest it is essential that we set up spaces where people can learn how to use debate and critical thinking to understand those who act against us. (Please read that link, I think it will help you.)
And, just to be clear, I am confident that you are arguing in bad faith to try and gain more access to this board to further harm our community.
What the holy shit!?!
This suggests your capabilities of perception are in dire need of good solid lessons in debate and critical thinking. I suggest you are exactly the type of person that needs to see such arguments against agents acting against the interests of We The People play out in the debate process.
I addressed this "hypothetical" specifically by suggesting that banning AIs was a good thing. You are creating an orange to compare to my apple.
And people will come along and see the argument and will be able to think for themselves whether or not any point has been sufficiently defended. There is no need to censor under such nebulous circumstances.
Trying to catch all these "maybe they have bad intent" people will certainly catch people who don't. Any such "accidental casualty" will be a greater harm to the community and the GA as a whole. Will any positive effect occur from such a tactic? If someone wishes to do harm, though it's not really that easy to be sure they mean to do harm, and their argument is rebutted in debate, the argument has been seen. It doesn't matter what their intent is; the particular argument or tactic has been exposed. The community as a whole is improved.
There is nothing to be gained by censorship except in cases that are (actually) obvious. If we don't trust people to learn how to counter such subversive agents as you hypothesize, how can we possibly have a GA? That is the entire point of the GA.
And that is the necessary lesson of the GA. I assert The Argument Will Out. You seem to believe that we need overlords protecting us.
This is a fundamental difference between our viewpoints, and I suggest also a fundamental lesson of the GA. Overlords/protectors, are not the path. One of the primary lessons of the GA is to learn to think for ourselves; to be our own agents in life. If we can't learn that here where we have support and people engaged in an honest attempt to route it out, where better is there?
I suggest it is essential that we set up spaces where people can learn how to use debate and critical thinking to understand those who act against us. (Please read that link, I think it will help you.)
What the holy shit!?!
This suggests your capabilities of perception are in dire need of good solid lessons in debate and critical thinking. I suggest you are exactly the type of person that needs to see such arguments against agents acting against the interests of We The People play out in the debate process.
I suggest you may not understand "the established knowledge" in that document (nor what that phrase really means).
I will never stop arguing against censorship of ideas engaged in earnest. I think that makes me smart (in the "aware" sense). YMMV.