Elon Musk, Twitter, Free Speech vs Moderation. Jim Rutt & Aaron Rabinowitz
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 04. 2022
- In one of the most important developments in the dynamic between big tech, free speech and media in many years, Elon Musk is buying Twitter for $44bn.
Much of the commentary online has devolved into the predictable political shouting matches, and there has been very little engagement with the key questions that this brings up about the nature of moderation, of how to create healthy dialogue and what problems Elon will have to wrestle with in taking Twitter forward.
Jim Rutt is the former head of the Santa Fe Institute, and has been involved with online communities since the birth of the internet. He believes that Elon has not fully wrestled with the problem of moderation that he will be taking on with Twitter, a view he explained in his new piece for Quillette, 'Musk & Moderation': quillette.com/2022/04/27/musk...
This is a sometimes robust debate and disagreement with Aaron Rabinowitz, a moral philosopher and host of the Embrace the Void podcast. Aaron has spent time wrestling with these same issues, in particular in a famous experiment he ran during the Trump election of 2016 when he created a completely unmoderated discussion group, called Monster island: www.skeptic.org.uk/2020/10/mo...
Check out Jim's podcast, the Jim Rutt Show: www.jimruttshow.com/
And Aaron's podcast Embrace the Void: voidpod.com/podcasts
Hey all - this was a great, robust conversation between different points of view and we hope you enjoy it. I have just published a new written piece reflecting on the conversation on Substack - please check it out and you can subscribe there for free and you won't miss any of the free content: rebelwisdom.substack.com/p/elon-musk-twitter-moderation-and?s=w
Given the topic, and especially how heated the topic of free speech/censorship/moderation can become online, I thought it was worth spelling out our own attitude to moderation. We would love the comments thread to reflect the values we are trying to promote on Rebel Wisdom, of high quality engagement, awareness of our emotional reactions and trying to see things from multiple perspectives.
Disagreement is welcome, and we are very lucky that the comments threads under Rebel Wisdom videos are often very high quality (the recent Harrington/Kingsnorth for example).
But when disagreeing/criticising, please take the time and effort to lay out an argument, no low value drive by shootings, and no personal attacks. Personal attacks or low value criticism has an effect on the quality of the conversation we are hosting, and also affects how we are able to host certain guests in the future, and we want to be able to host people from across the political and cultural spectrum.
Perhaps also take the time to read the links in the show notes, Jim's article in Quillette, and Aaron's 'Monster Island' piece.
We will never delete critical comments that are well argued and considered, we welcome criticism. But we will delete comments that are rude, personal or otherwise just not moving the conversation forward in any meaningful way. Who decides that? Here, we do. We're providing all this content for free so we have the right to curate this space as we wish, and as the conversation spells out, some form of curation/moderation is necessary. Ideally this becomes a place that is self-moderating because of the high quality engagement from all of you, but this is also CZcams so we're not naive.
Short comments/quips also welcome of course.
Anyway, please enjoy the conversation and let us know what you think.
David.
Hello David,
As a free speech absolutist I am taking serious your reservations. I think the argument you guys have about unlimited information and limited attention is a serious argument against “good speech being the cure for bad speech.”
I don’t think it’s just a matter of good vs. bad speech. I think the platform and medium of the speech also matter, and it matters who is doing the talking. The listener is also a factor in good speech beating bad speech, and we have an issue that McgilChrist addresses about our very way of life destroying the ability to attend, as well as everyone from captains of industry, secular social plan types, and religious positivists intentionally mal-educating the populace for over one hundred years, before the current problems of wokeness in schools.
I think addressing that, and having the same amount of repetition put into a visible, mutual self policing that was put into Harris vs Peterson, on a visible platform could have a major affect. If high level pan tribalists are trying to self police in isolated discussions, it will not work. The effect will be just what Stephen Fry said when he told Jordan Peterson that he didn’t think the same left could police the radical left. And as a conservative, we need someone to address the issues not just with Donald Trump, but the neoconservatives who preceded, and to actually integrate the higher order conversations in these spaces.
As it is not just a matter of what is said, but a matter of who is saying it, each group must address not only their fringe, and corrupt establishments. They must also address who is perpetrating the stupidity and ideological possession in the mainstream. You, Tiabi, and the Weinsteins have done this on the mainstream left wing media. I have not yet seen anyone do it from my camp in regards to Fox News, or audience captured 30 year olds who make a living off destroying 20 year old college kids.
Bridging this to a similar self policing in the religious and rtnar conversations is necessary. I do not think you can plug in a libertarian or conservatarian script either, and the utilitarian dimension is less important than the higher order conversations you n these spaces. However, I do think with people like Douglas Murray, and the late Sir Roger Scruton there are some important things we have to say that are glossed over in these spaces because there is never any resistance (very largely to do with the fact 99% of conservatism has avoided the kinds of discussions in these spaces, or the kinds Scruton and McGilchrist must have had with each other.)
And though the utilitarian is lesser, and you guys have legit points against libertarianism, if you want to level those arguments, you need to go find the good faith actors over there who do think psychology and philosophy matter. Let me give you an inside look at an issue across the aisle in the mimetic tribes.
Two interpenetrative viewpoints are the libertarian and conservative position. Conservatism claims upholds a degree of classic liberalism that it now calls conservatism. However, it really upholds the Ayn Rand mentality and a kind of Americanized Prussian Father cult in neoconservatism to populism. On top of this there is a very anti religious sentiment in libertarianism that sees all religion as a power scheme. This fuels the inability to communicate with Christian conservatism.
When conservatism favors big business over equality of process, and requires fractional reserve banking for military spending they bring up culture, religion and philosophy. This can be seen with articles from National Review such as “Why we are conservatives before we are liberals.” But when conservatism is called out for not being about culture, religion, and philosophy they appeal to blue collar red meat and hold up fake “free market capitalism.” Add to this all the problems in libertarianism, candidates dates with boots on their heads, getting naked on stage, they don’t have to face the massive economic case libertarianism has stacked up against them.
That may not be your case against them, and the utilitarian is secondary. But if you want a real pan-tribalist conversation, it will require the best people from those two camps who can have those conversations and are willing to police their tribes doing that in tandem with with the people in these spaces. If Weinstein or Peterson can get 6 million views on Rogan, and Harris v Peterson could have the long term effect on the conversation, there’s no reason this couldn’t be done with a twelve hour mutual self policing across tribes, followed by the core arguments in a dialectal discussion. It’s also a way you guys could further the work of getting Vervaeke mainstream visibility, because its a conversation he should be in.
Thanks for all your hard work.
The guy with the beard and glasses is everything that's wrong with the world in 2022.
The philosopher doesn't get that "content moderation" is a euphemism for banning things we don't like. His smug certainty on what should & shouldn't be banned is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Absolutely
@@OrwellsHousecat probably right. Confusing our subjective judgments for objective truths is common. Some just do it more often & with more certainty than others.
Yall do realize that TV shows like Worlds Funniest Videos had to often alert police due to the content they received by the public for review?
I think many comments aren't digging deeply enough as far as how much people will push envelopes when given the opportunity esp given the possibility of fame and recognition.
Consider the backlash against Hollywood films and the line-crossing that gets presented there. I can't sincerely imagine the content which must go under review on many of these platforms, but imagine you'd change your tune about non-moderation if you did.
You forgot the quotes - "phosopher."
Also, Kyle Riddenhaus had no "conspirators"... talk about CONSPIRACY THEORY!! 🤣😂
He's a lispy narcissist who lies about people because his ideas are terrible.
Indeed, his smug certainty was on full display
The who decides question is easy for Aaron because he believes he and everyone who agrees with him should decide. Once you convince yourself you are morally superior you become a totalitarian devil.
Well said.
At least in many cases, yes.
If Aaron was half as smart as he thinks he is, I would trust him to moderate content. Unfortunately he is overconfident and arrogant just like most totalitarian control freaks.
The problem with Aaron's point of view is, I suppose, he imagines himself as the moderator/arbiter of truth, rather than taking a veil-of-ignorance approach to who may be the content moderator in a given context. My list of ideas that are "dangerous" won't match his, which won't match Xi Jinping's.
Paraphrasing Aaron: "The test should be: can you subscribe to a memeplex and live a good life" -- well, it depends on how you define a good life. Aaron seems to have a storm shutter over his Overton window. It's a very basic blind-spot and somewhat tedious to hear him keep hitting up against that wall.
From my experience, Aaron represents the typical atheist perspective, which tends towards extreme cynicism and elitism.
@@alquinn8576 Example: he portrays Rittenhouse's self-defense as "vigilante," despite a jury (and a large majority of those who know the facts of the case) exonerated him. But Rabinowitz thinks he's superior.
Most of Aaron’s arguments are tightly bound philosophical rationales for his moral tastebuds
Aaron isn't a philosopher he's a sophist.
It’s hard to be everybody’s cup of tea, he definitely seems skilled in post-modern philosophy. I’ve also found many Jewish people to hold similar tendencies towards an underlying deep fear and responsive stance to anti-semitism, which I can understand, but I think it can promote a biased philosophical standpoint to something like moderation
@@tylermiller4150 being skilled in post-modern philosophy is sophistry
@@xcyoteex that's an overstatement, when one uses the methodology of deconstruction as one's primary argumentative mode, that is sophistry
@@xcyoteex so says everyone, painting with a broad brush discounts the concept creation of modern philosophers to describe the world we live in. Try Acid horizon's versions of Delueze and Guattari, there is undoubtedly much to learn from postmodern late 20th century philosophy
I I think the problem with Aaron, is that he speaks starting from the assumption, that his views are correct, and assumes that everyone in good standing in the community is going to share his views, so his whole perspective rests on the assumption that what is true or moral can be readily known, and thus effective content moderation can be achieved without censoring true ideas. This results in an inability to truly discuss deeper issues.
Aaron is getting dunked on in the comments section, but I bet it won't affect him. He's like Sam Harris and Tony Blair. Those types are 100% certain they are right, so they cannot change.
He also has incredibly cartoonish and comically unrefined views about what a healthy and flourishing life or whatever exact terms that he used. That's a key point that leads to a lot of his gross assumptions.
Funny, I think my last comment got moderated.
Let me put it in different words. I enjoyed watching the philosopher talk himself into a corner. His argument about Trump was authoritarian to the core. If, as he said, there is no point in letting Trump back on - subject to the well defined decorum rules that everyone else would be subject to - then what is stopping the banning of anyone that is deemed to 'probably will get banned anyways'. His argument is wrong headed, and dare I say dangerous - a word he likes to throw out constantly. It seems obvious that he isn't aware of his own hypocrisy.
I'll be interested to see if this comment gets removed.
Agree with your points here. The philosopher must have only studied rhetoric, not logic.
@@rickc3291 -- he also portrays Monster Island as an "experiment," but is clearly not trained in any sort of science. He extrapolated wildly beyond a limited dataset. He's the type who sees one poodle and declares that all dogs weigh 53.4 pounds...and that he should be put in charge of preventing anyone from saying different.
@@Dudemon-1 Yes, because he wants to save the world from all the 'dangerous' actors, including the president of the US. And he talks about cults, I daresay he's in one himself.
Sorry but a little disappointed by the lack of content in this debate with one guy (Aaron Rabinowitz) constantly talking over the other one which in itself shows the respect he holds in front of a different view.
Well said. Aaron proved to be smug and arrogant, where Jim is the guy I'd like to have a beer with.
I agree, some who cannot confront a different view point, probably has one themselves that would not stand up to criticism.
This was my thought as well, even as I found myself agreeing with some of Mr. Rabinowitz's points. He seems to be captured in his own meme-plex.
Yes, he is a perfect example of someone that views himself as open minded and seeking the truth, but is actually stuck in his own ideological views. Take when the idea of letting Trump back on came up - it is obvious he already has his mind well made up and won't listen to any logic. This is not how truth seeking people behave.
@@OrwellsHousecat wow I see what you mean, history always prooving to be a good teacher these day.
Aaron's low-information, alarmingly clueless arrogance is infuriating, and then Jim Rutt comes in like a soothing balm of reason.
Major respect for Jim's history on The Well, and appreciation for his rare, principled sanity in these divisive times.
The whole upvoted comment section talks like we root for the winner, instead of trying to find the truth (instead we assert to already know the truth to a sufficient degree already ^^).
With it, we become like Aaron - self-assured beyond what the goal of this global free-speech debate is actually about; to “shut up” our own certainty & try to learn from each other, even if we fervently disagree.
This is not a football match, the stakes are much more high. ^^
The young gentleman, Aaron is so incredibly saturated with personal bias that he has absolutely no grasp of the basic human right of people to even think outside of the establishment lines. He was citing the DHS as a trustable organization for goodness sake. That alone is a stunning disconnect from basic reality.
Wow. Love and agree with most of Jim Rutt's perspective. He is humble is sharing experiences and what he has learned along the way. On the other hand, Aaron Rabinowitz is rude and arrogant, and would seem to be right at home at rationalizing the Ministry of Truth.
Aaron is right to point out that ideas can be dangerous, but that is not sufficient to justify the sort of content moderation Aaron seems to favor. The problem is capture by the moderators for their own aims. Concentrated manipulation via moderators seems far more dangerous than disembodied ideas circulating (which may be uncontrollable regardless).
Aaron also seems to dislike certain *kinds* of dangerous ideas rather than dangerous ideas as such. And I'm not clear why a million dead due to a religious-adjacent false belief is worse/qualitatively different than a million dead due to a political-propagandist false-belief. I agree Aaron is a few steps away from being a pro-Ministry of Truth useful-idiot.
_Smarmy_ came up in my mind multiple times in his delivery
Just remember you are fine with a Ministry of Truth, but only if it applies to the left only. You guys are so transparently hypocritical.
When people just snap throw out a term like anti-vaxxer in the first 10 minutes of a conversation you know they are ideologically captured. That term has been twisted dramatically in regards to sars cov 2, and it signals a cohesive narrative around an evolving issue
@@tylermiller4150 the lack of nuanced understanding is the real turn off. He used Jan 6 as proof Q is dangerous. It happened and you can’t deny the reality, but the motivation by each person is hardly settled so you can use it as cause to prove a point.
From time immemorial there have been humans who insist you bend-the-knee to their determination that certain ideas are not just wrong, they're so dangerous that they should not even be allowed in the public square. Sorry, but the smug arrogance of that position would be laughable and/or pathetic if it, itself, weren't so dangerous.
It is ironic that the person who is for more heavy-handed moderation is the one who could have used some “decorum moderation.” And this is feedback for David Fuller: I would have liked to see Jim Rutt given more space to explicate his ideas, rather than Aaron Rabinowitz frequently talking over him, not to mention employing various rhetorical tactics to divert and strawman that diminished the potential for real dialogue.
One elephant in the room that wasn’t addressed, and what I think Rabinowitz-whether consciously or not-continually edged toward, is the idea of a top-down power structure, some group or body who decides what is "safe" for consumption by the masses. I'm guessing that he's probably on board with the new "Disinformation Governance Board;" interestingly enough, he did mention the DHS.
Aaron is not only naive but also repulsive in his arrogance and assertion that he, and other woke-like fanatics, could decide what is reasonable, safe, allowed and worthy or not. If safety, and not pure ideally, was his real concern, he’d start in Africa and the Middle East.
He clearly signaled most people can't decide good ideas from bad ones, and need a politburo or some such.
@@cheddartheadventurer7511 Ironically you both prove him right.
I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but the picture I personally formed was one of Aaron claiming for himself the capacity (and right) to be able to tell which opinions should and shouldn’t be censored, all the while proving himself incapable of holding a public conversation with a well-behaving person which holds a different point of view without constantly interrupting and derailing him.
By doing so, he does a major disservice to his point of view as it‘s potential merits don’t get to be defended. Which is too bad, because I would’ve really liked to watch a well-articulated antithesis to Jim’s thesis.
wow let Jim Rutt talk!!!! this philosopher has some heavy handed labels and ideas of others subjective experience.
This was not "a great, robust conversation about free speech vs. moderation." The bulk of the conversation is Rabinowitz espousing what he believes justifies "reasonable upstream content moderation." Unfortunately, the whole conversation ended up being a debate on what defines conspiratorialism, not what the title suggests.
It is pretty easy to smell the conspiratorialists is it not? Hint hint.
I don't want to live in Aron's world. I want to live in Jim's
😂
Agree completely that this was not ""a great, robust conversation about free speech vs. moderation." It was grating and embarrassing to listen to.
Anybody got a better convo that we can listen to, about free speech?
Aaron commits the same thinking errors he accuses "dangerous" conspiracy thinkers of. That is why we can't moderate content.
The problem with decorum is that it is subjective. The second problem is that the left has weaponised moralistic concern trolling.
100%. He is worried about people jumping to irrational conclusions while he himself jumps to irrational conclusions.
He knows exactly what he's doing
Yes, and he has the nerve to defend his way of thinking by speaking, while censoring 'moderating' everyone's else.
@@santiagorestrepo2000 also he has a hard time listening. He just can’t stop interrupting.
Unimpressed with low level of steelmanning in this debate. Anytime I hear someone say "confirm you agree with me first before you continue" is a clear signal of problems
Agree, seems more like a debate-tactic to score points rather than a contribution to a genuine dialogue.
Yes, giving someone the opportunity to clarify a position is clearly a "signal of problems". Can't have that!
@@ComradeYinkai try understanding what steel manning is first
@@davideastman928 Sounds like the kind of thing you should reflect on yourself.
I would not like Aaron anywhere near a position that has power to control the dissemination of information.
Primary and overwhelming takeaway.
He's a teacher in some university? FFS.
Man this guy, Aaron is hard to listen to. There should be a trigger warning for his smugness, my ptsd is red lining and no one is protecting me from the damage that it's doing to my well being. But what he makes explict which is informative, is that this is about a claim of objective morality from his point of view. Why I find that fascinating is this is a athesit who doesn't appear to be a conservative or traditionalist who believes he has a clear insight on objective morality.
😂
I hope you were joking about the ptsd
@@tylermiller4150 -yes, i just thought a joke was easier than trying to formulate an argument about who gets to judge damage and injury? That's a huge can of worms to unpack, i could legitimately be experiencing subjective anxiety, stress, and mental anguish but it could be I just have a terrible hangover and have no resilience towards discomfort, or someone may actually be psychologically trying to cause me pain. That's hard to moderate how to protect people from. So just claiming you are protecting people, sounds really noble, but it's way more complicated than the claim appears. Since for instance whos protecting me from the anguish, his smugness is causing me, and whose fault is it that I'm feeling that anguish?
@@Sigrdrifaz yeah I think assigning blame for feelings based on those "present" is particularly misguided sometimes
I laughed out loud at the trigger warning part
Since Rebel Wisdom is almost always such a calm and tame channel, it was kind of cool to see some guests readjusting themselves in their chairs etc. Great conversation. My take on the two viewpoints is very simple. Jim was discussing general moderation of online public squares; Aaron was discussing moderating specific groups that he does not like, personally. Saying that goofy Q-Anon content is in the same league as an article on how to make a bomb is a non-started as for as I'm concerned.
Always happy to see Jim Rutt. Of all the philoso-verse cinematic, I wanna hang with and chew the cut with Mr Rutt the most. Thank you Rebel Wisdom as always!
Jim laid out a set of values that apply to all. Aaron says conservatives are bad.
“I would put Marxist Leninism at the top” but who decides? 100% correct on both points
Aaron Rabinowitz single-handedly demonstrates why online moderation is a dangerous thing.
PERFECTLY!
How so?
As soon as Aaron called James Lindsay 'regressive' he completely lost me.
Try to get Rob Malda (of Slashdot fame) on to talk with Jim Rutt. Rob Malda has had excellent experience with running a very pro-free speech platform and also having pretty decent moderation.
I can't trust this Aaron guy's characterization of monster island given the other stuff he says.
James Lindsay is not just regressive, he is fucking insane.
Aaron doesn’t believe sunlight is the best disinfectant because he isn’t trying to disinfect and find the truth. For reasons I’m sure are well intentioned, he’s just trying to get everyone on his sheet of music, not explore possibilities and new ideas. So, not surprising he’s skeptical of free speech. From his perspective, if he’s being honest, free speech is just a tool to get people to believe as he does, if they arrive at another conclusion then other tools should be used.
What a waste of Jim Rutt’s time. He deserves much better. Get him alone next time David, or at least with someone on his level.
The funny thing is, even though I was strongly against viewpoint-moderation before watching this, listening to Aaron's arguments made me even _more_ concretely against it. So in an oblique way, I guess I have to thank Aaron for shifting my opinion (away from his)! Also, this demonstrates how bad ideas (as I perceive Aaron's to be) don't monotonically pull in new hosts for them to embody; rather, they can have the opposite effect if openly discussed.
the old man running circles around this kid, holy shit
Aaron reminded me of my younger self - “impossible” - Maybe it will take a divorce - a significant illness or addiction ha can’t beat with his intellect to know that some epistemic humility isn’t an “idea” but an encounter with life
I’m glad that people are shinning the light on the problems with social media, but lets also acknowledge that a lot of the bad press aimed at the social media platforms is from large media companies trying to maintain their influence and profitability.
Hardly. If anything media companies are easy on social media since they depend on it now more than ever.
Aaron should not be near levers of power. Just my opinion, but he appears to definitely have an authoritarian bent..
It's satisfying to see the guy arguing against the 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' metaphor, get so thoroughly exposed by someone brighter than him.
It's OK to do one of these one-on-ones and not post it if the signal-to-noise ratio of one of the participants is too low.
The Left needs to learn how to value people on the Right and stop looking for reasons to not interact with them.
I was thinking that too. Aaron talks nothing but his gripes with the Right and acts like the majority of the world believes the way he does. In other words, "of course most of us all agree that these right wingers are the bad ones", yet in reality, half the US pop would disagree with his views. That's not a fringe. These people live their lives thinking about how they can brainwash the right, or make them cease to exist, yet the only reason they are able to do that, is because the right let it happen. The right are not the authoritarians.
I'm just over 30 minutes in. Aaron is simply saying, 'moderation should consist of sensoring views I (Aaron) don't agree with, or at best, views I don't agree with on any subject I deem of importance'. It's not a reasonable good faith argument, just because it's said in a mild mannerd polite way. It's essentially the argument every murderous dictator in the history of humanity has made, i.e. my morals are the correct ones, my wisdom is the correct wisdom and therefore it's acceptable to censor anyone who disagrees with me. It's arrogant in the extreme to take such a self-congratulatory/self-righteous view of your self. Bizarre that neither Jim nor David have called him out on that yet. Let's see how the rest of the discussion goes.
Well, I know who I'd rather have moderating my social media of choice.... And it ain't Aaron Rabinowitz
Hi I'm Aaron, I love respectful debate, now let me tell you where you are wrong and I won't listen when you disagree. Thank you.
Unfortunately, Aaron's mis-calibration on Qanaon's threat essentially invalidates his entire model here. As bad as Qanon is - it is not as bad as bomb making instructions - sorry.
Aaron Rabinowitz? Really?
At 1:06:00 onwards, in the attached, Aaron is asked if Lia Thomas should be allowed to be naked in a women's only changing room.
And he said yes.
So remember - an ex-mediocre male swimmer, (post male puberty) that has such severe emotional/psychological issues as to be certain that they're the sex they were not born as - is fine to be in a female sex only changing room, (with their male genital intact and on show).
I'd say they need the help of a mental healthcare professional to address their dysphoria, rather than pandering to & affirmation - via the loss of others' rights.
We don't give gastric bands to Anorexics because they say they feel they've weight issues.
And people with multiple personalities - don't get multiple passports, do they?
So would it be possible, if next time - you're able to get someone that accepts human biology & anatomy, as well as completely respects the sex based rights of women?
Because Aaron, seems to have an issue with reality.
Ta V Much.
czcams.com/video/d_VfCKtrZPQ/video.html
Haha! Aaron's behavior was simply awful while on The Mess We're In. What concerns me about people like Aaron, who bandy around the idea of "harm being done," is that they are clearly oblivious to their own shadow, and the possibility that they also engage in plenty of "harmful" behaviors themselves. It doesn't mean that they don't have some valid points, but they appear to not be aware that they and their friends and allies haven't yet cleaned up their own bedroom... While they tell others to clean up their bedrooms.
@@xitlallicommentstoday2169 Agreed.
For me, he seems to be very much on the modern day transactivist adjacent/ally version of what it means to be Trans.
There's plenty of Trans people that are comfortable with referring to themselves as Transmen or Transwomen, have no expectation that society should see them as indistinguishable from, let alone identical to the sex they weren't born as and are 'attempting to mimic.
People like Aaron, seem to want to do at least 3 things at once.
Signal their virtue, argue in favour for what is a minority, (within a minority) - whilst seemingly unaware that they're enforcing an expectation on women - regarding what women should allow into their own sex based spaces/rights, (which you'd think he might see as extreme, "mansplaining").
Whilst oblivious to the obvious issues that females may have with male genitalia - being in their space & on display.
Because regardless of what the person with male genitalia may or may not believe - there's no such thing as a Lady Penis & Testicles.
And pandering to someone's extreme mental/emotional issues - is ultimately no help at all.
Aaron is contributing to a harmful environment - whether he recognises it, or not.
I really think the team of the Cosilience Project, Daniel Schmachtenberger and Tristan Harris should try to get in Contact with Elon. I think it could be a huge possibility to make the best out of the platform and have a positive impact on our information environment. He seems to be open for conversations and also sincerely willing to do the best for our civilization as far as im aware. He is just not aware of the whole set of problems on the same level the guys mentioned above are. The Joe Rogan Podcast or Lex Friedmans Podcast could help to link them together, since they all there guests there already.
I completely agree, although I'm not sure this would happen, but it definitely should. Elon could bring about a platform that not only helps free speech, but also, helps people develop civic virtues and fix the ecology of information
This would be perfect. The concilience project guys must have cotacted elon already, but a mutual friend like Fridman or Rogan could be needed to allow them the time for each other
Aaron seems to be ok with conspiracies that blame vague groups. Such as CRT. So the boogyman is allowed, so long as it is a memeplex or an egregore. But if the conspiracy more literally blames a cabal, a back room secret meeting, as Qanon conspiracy does, then he thinks it should be banned.
I like Jonathan Pageau's take on symbolism of conspiracy theories.
czcams.com/video/b8BaY0e-VTQ/video.html. I think that many conspiracy theories are literally false, but mythically true. For example, the instinct that grooming is occuring in school is probably true. But it's not caused by a cabal of secret pedos as alleged by Qanon. Instead, its the aligned incentives of public officials who were brainwashed at university by teachings of Judith Butler et Al.
But Aaron specifically stated that he would ban grooming allegations, because they are part of the memeplex of Qanon. This gives moderators like him far too much power.
Thanks for a great debate and I'd like to hear more from all parties to this conversation.
Yes it seems to be grasping at a pretty slim distinction with the differences between a conspiracy with a cabal as opposed to memeplex/egregore. I could easily imagine versions of blood libel, or Qanon for that matter, be promulgated with basically the same qualities as their original precursors but without a literal cabal plotting things at the top. Would they suddenly be ok now?
Judas Butler grooms boredom but I’m not sure she’s grooming what you seem to be saying…
1. How do you know Elon has not thought his plan out? I would think one of the most successful persons on the planet would be able to come up with a plan for fixing twitter.
2. Twitter is broke....it should be fixed....I have confidence that someone of Elon's calibur would be able to improve the dumpster fire of Twitter.
3. Qanon: I am not an expert on Qanon...however I think your guest's view on Qanon are really out there. Your guest...not Rutt the other guy is an extreme leftie seems like...someone who would widely censor and ban people from Twitter.....you would not want that guy moderating at Twitter.
4. Lefties in general think everyone to the right of them are interested in Qanon.....I have been accused of that and I don't know about or follow Qanon.....I am just to the right of these lefties....in the center IMO
1. Musk is good at scamming people out of their money, like Elizabeth Holmes was, but fixing real problems, not so much.
2. Assuming Twitter is "broke", Musk can't fix Twitter. He doesn't know how. Let me know when we have FSD Robotaxis, Hyperloop, etc. Also hilarious how he didn't do due diligence before making the deal, what a super genius!
3. QAnon is a murder cult that wants to kill left wing people.
4. Unsubstantiated claim.
I really like Jim's categorization of moderation: Decorum, Content and Point of View. And yes! Decorum is essential. Sort of like the concept of "unparliamentary language" in the British parliamentary system. Having said that, the technical challenge to design the decorum algorithm to moderate millions of concurrent conversations is daunting.
Aaron is obviously intelligent and has some very solid arguments… but theses a subtext in his argumentation that asserts a type of moral authority that has always been disconcerting for me.
It’s similar to the type of moral absolutism of religious fundamentalist groups, as though any “rational informed people would agree.”
I wish they would have had more space to dig into moral arguments because I think that’s where the fundamental disagreement between these two lies.
In the end, the questions I walked away with are the following:
1. Because multiculturalism is prevalent in western society, can a platform moderate on anything other than decorum without promoting a specific moral system?
2. Is it a platforms job to protect people from “parasitic thoughts?”
3. And the cliche that is a more important philosophical question than Aaron admits, who decides?
Aaron's intelligence is obvious like the existence of quantum physics.
Aaron is an example of what James Lindsay calls a "Very Smart Person".
Well he does comes from a very extremist group
Aaron “Shut it down!” Rabinowitz
I would probably be closer to free speech absolute than any view in this conversation. A long term goal for me would be strengthening critical thinking education as early and often as possible. That way bad ideas can arise, as they should be allowed to, and hopefully lesser people would fall for them.
Also, I feel bad Jim hadn't been given sufficient enough time to flesh some of his threads out. Aaron seemed all too eager to interrupt Jim, but I will charitably give him the out in that the conversation was not had in person.
Rabowitz gave the impression that the masses aren't equipped to parse good and bad ideas. It's the elephant in everything he says. It some sense it's condescending, but also its sort of true. 15% of people have IQ 80, and most of the rest of us are busy paying mortgages or raisimg kids.
He brushed off the 'who moderates' questions, but elites are as ideological, perhaps MORE ideological than most.
Jim Rutt. A fellow DMV hyper genius; the laser-like effect of his logic is always compelling. I’m afraid that Aaron finds himself hedging uncertainty against rationalism in a post modern critical theory way. Which is okay, but it has its utopian characteristics. Excellent as always by Rebel Wisdom.
46:40 Call it conspiracism or whatever you want, and yes David somewhat jumps on this rebuttal, the "they" that BLM stands in opposition to is _seemingly_ intentionally open-ended; a blank to be filled in by whoever when necessary. And considering people's attention spans and the media cycle, "they" becomes a whack-a-mole, essentially opening the door for target-hopping. I see this ability to mutate its goal as extremely hazardous. Couple that with the fact that BLM has a stronger basis rooted in reality, it becomes easier for new recruits to hop on.
You can’t have “healthy on-line communities” with people which put feelings before rationality.
"Lemme give you the other side of that" And this is when I knew the conversation was fruitless.
I’m halfway through. Hoping Aaron can stop interrupting long enough for me to hear what Jim has to say.
The main issue at hand was missed. Jim was close when he was talking about domain’s and that could have taken the conversation where it needs to go in respect to Twitter. The most important question is this: “what’s it for?” Is it meant to be a public square? Or something else. For example, if it is, that then drives how you moderate it. What would happen in a public square? Something illegal = removed. Fake person / in disguise = revealed and/or removed. Not a real person = impossible to participate. Distasteful or personal attacks = shouted down, removed, ridiculed and mocked… you see what I mean. “What it’s for” drives everything. Do we really know the answer to that question? Then, those that don’t like it, well it’s not for you. Just like qanon is not joined by everyone, it’s not for them.
Good stuff. Anybody else always wish RW episodes were longer??
When Aaron used the term platforming the way he did accusing Jim and David, i had a hard time being fair to him going forward.
Sounds like a personal problem on your part.
Aaron reminded me of Sam Harris when he's on his hobby horses. It's like they have a fear of mental infection. Perhaps they are the same MBTI type. They believe their thoughts are pure and correct and that they must heroically protect us from impure and incorrect thoughts. Hence, Aaron constantly interrupted Jim Rutt who remained amiable and respectful throughout. Anyway, regarding Twitter, Elon Musk is taking on something that is too big - he has dangerously overreached like many powerful people do when they are on a wave of success. And regarding free speech generally, we need to face the fact that we are in a deluded world - free speech will remain severely limited until we address that elephant in the room.
Aaron Rabinowitz and Samuel Benjamin Harris are from the same clan and you're not invited
I very much appreciate David Fuller's brilliance, sincerity and love of truth. So I point out what I think he missed. I am not sure how any discussion of Elon Musk or free speech and certainly not both can occur without even the slightest mention of corporate capitalism.
I'm now 40 minutes in and Aaron is a very arrogant man. He interrupts whnever he sees fit, not moderated by David by the way, and has just said, 'before we move on, I want to make sure you agree with me'. NOT I want to find out if you agree with me but I want to MAKE SURE you agree with me. he is coming cross as a hyper liberal with serious authoritatarian tendencies pretending to be a mild-mannered reasonable person. I'll continue to listen.
The reason I'm glad Elon Musk is buying Twitter is because of people like Aaron Rabinowitz. I don't care for QAnon type stuff either but opinions should not be censored. I really like Jim Rutt's comments on these topics.
I've always been puzzled by the progressive want to control what people think. If someone believes in an absurd or offensive memeplex I would prefer to know that, but I don't feel the need to fix that for them.
Aaron's argument's were weak and often self-involved. Well done to Jim Rutt tho. excellent points.
Aaron just too sure of the righteousness of his points of view. I found the conversation gut-jarring all the way through, his list of topics worth censuring was way too wide and way too predictable. (Anti vax in particular, and his considering of january 6th as anything worse than a violent protest,both fully debatable subjects for which the cows have definitely not yet come home.) I don't think he can really claim the title of philosopher at this stage.
@Hellig Usvart build to the side! (Its what we do in Game B.)
@@OrwellsHousecat Yeah, we're all onto it...
I love watching the younger gentleman's brain work really hard to understand that different view points even those perceived as dangerous should never be silenced. Silencing a different view point is like burning books. Rational humans can decipher and make up their own minds on what content they want to consume. We do not need smug moderators telling us what we should or shouldn't be consuming.
Aaron needs to get a job at the Ministry of Truth, I heard they are hiring
30:04 mark that's what I'm at currently. I really enjoyed this conversation so far! Everyone is bringing up really thoughtful ideas. I do find it interesting that at this current point in conversation the main crux between Mr. Rutt and Mr. Rabinowitz is perhaps age and experience! I think Mr. Rabinowitz shows his naivety towards the world a little, that regardless of if you wish or hope that the world isn't populated by monsters it currently is and has been. Which means you're going to either have to let some of those monsters speak at the table (why I agree with Mr. Rutt) or face the fact that you are ignoring their presence. Perhaps Mr. Rabinowitz believes that those voices are not necessary in order to overcome their opinions? (I should probably reserve my thoughts until the end of the video! Haha) which he might be right.
But personally I would much rather know that Im dealing with monsters than going about my day just believing in a fantasy that they aren't all around me or that Im not currently speaking to some of them. In an odd way I feel ignoring those voices, especially the really extreme ones lends them even more strength and power. Because they than operate completely unnoticed and invisible.
It's a hard pill to swallow when you suddenly open the world up to communication and than are shocked to what you discover. But blaming the open communication for our own beliefs and behaviors is completely ass backwards and very immature and childish.
Like I said, I'd much rather know I'm talking to monsters... It's just very sad there are so many of them running around.
Sorry for the buzzkill! Still looking forward to what is yet to be said! Okay back to the conversation I go!!!!
39:06 mark. I think this is clear example of Mr. Rabinowitz's naivety. I am probably going to be accused of being all sorts of things by even saying this but it must be said. Jews have committed heinous atrocities... And they have been victims of heinous atrocities. The victims of atrocities committed by Jews will surely have their theories and stories of how the Jews are evil. As well as Jews having their own stories about those who murdered their ancestors.
We end up with the type of situation we are in where those of one ancestors fight for their version of history to dominate while another fights for their version.
Unfortunately for me the illusion that any of us are pure, or free of blood on our hands, has been thoroughly destroyed in me. I'm well aware of just how much blood, pain, and suffering it's taken for me to be sitting here shoveling food down my gullet.
Qanon to me is one of the more believable conspiracies I've ever heard... Cannibalism, child sacrifice, sex with children, slavery, racism. That's like a Sunday picnic for our species track record... Perhaps Qanon is wrong in thinking our entire government is involved in those things, but it's not crazy to me to think at the very least some people are. So is Qanon wrong? Would Qanon be wrong if it turned out to only be five people in the entire country that did this stuff? How about just one?
47:00 might not be the exact moment but close enough. The world can be terrible and awful and no conspiracy is responsible, I agree! But it also can be terrible and awful and also a conspiracy is occurring at the same time. Once again I can't help but feel Mr. Rabinowitz is clinging to the idea that he and perhaps the people he aligns with are somehow free of the atrocities that all of us are connected to in some way shape or form. I also find it really strange to think that within the supporters of BLM that Mr. Rabinowitz doesn't think that some people share their own version of some sort of powerful white supremacist entity that is controlling things? I've personally been exposed to very militant versions of BLM who believe something not too far off from Qanon levels of thinking.
Aaron appears early on to have a pretty strong bias. My alarms go off that he is incapable of the specific nuance needed for this subject. just my opinion
How come the FBI cant deny they had actor provocateurs on January 6th? So why does this kid keep bringing up January 6th?
Rebel Wisdom with their convenient sense-making positionality seems more controlled opposition than either "rebel" or "wisdom." Compare with common law advocates who are pointing out the essential hierarchy of Creator > Man and Woman > Institutions, where morality (as in, long-term benefit for self and other, or not) necessarily includes freedom and responsibility. That is actually wise and rebellious, doesn't sell very well, admittedly.
the focus on the toxicity of Q indicates to me there isnt as much deep thought in perspective as a philosopher might need.
There is no cost associated with posting/commenting/heckling. Create a cost, whether its identity verification, monetary cost, basically any kind of barriers to entry and watch the trolls disappear. I'd bet the reason most people fail to vote is because it takes time out of your day to stand in line and make sure you've got the right paperwork. Imagine the chaos if voting was as easy as posting a tweet!
If you can apply decorum rules to moderate the conversation on Twitter I think it's fine to allow James Lindsay to remain and Trump to return. But the rules must be applied evenly to all accounts, regardless of how powerful or popular the account holder. And there needs to be some sort of "three strikes you're out" provision. And the possibility of rehabilitation ;-)
Well said, particularly regarding the possibility of rehabilitation.
Naw... The Left is all for rehabilitation of repeat violent offenders, but the only "rehabilitation" they'll accept from those to the right is Soviet-style...renunciation of point-of-view, not decorum nor content reform.
Perhaps this was deliberately not part of this discussion but the real elephant in the room is the one Aaron brushed-off early on in the discussion. But it's the whole point really, I think of JIm's argument. WHO GETS TO DECIDE? Only by having moderation of the mildest/minimalist form possible (eg. decorum and direct violations of the law) do we avoid the tribalism that arises when one or a small number of people get to decide what's acceptable and what's not. Even if it starts out with good intentions, inevitaby, over time, you will find a clear socio-political bias coming through in the decisions, and that's what leads to real frustration, lack of trust, when pushed far enough, actual violence.
Great semi-debate. Agreed and disagreed with both guests. Please do more debates with them, I learned so much!
"Everything's for sale, my friend. Everything. If I had a sister, I'd sell her in a second"
What about ranking the topics to their importance for local, national and global goals? I mean, topics too, because there will be other factors to consider.
Look into the Greek word 'parresia'. Often translated as 'boldness' in the Bible... But it can also be considered to mean 'freedom of speech' or 'confidene' Vanderklay/Vervaeke/DC Schindler/Pageau would be excellent voices to contribute to this topic of 'moderation' and prudence.
Church(es) have had to deal with moderation for centuries... Could be some parallels to explore...
I couldn't watch this in its entirety and had to stop after 30 min as Aaron's points are so clearly authoritarian, and he got more of the mic time than the far more logical and ecumenical Jim Rutt.
So many revealing points. For me, putting aside all the unselfconscious cartooning of opposing thought that Aaron displayed, the person that he mentioned a few times, James Lindsay is what got me the most. Labelling James Lindsay as dangerous lays bare his sole desire for viewpoint control. If Lindsay is a target, it is because he is a betrayer of the left, having come from their ranks. As Peterson MUST be attacked for having broken ranks, so must Lindsay. He needs to be de-platformed SPECIFICALLY because his arguments are effective in shining a light and thereby making people less comfortable in their cognitive dissonance. Aaron and his ilk just cannot have that.
I learned at school that when you attack personally you show you lost tour argument so, isn't this a good measure for moderation?
aaron really seems to have a lot of difficulty accommodating for unknowns in memeplex dynamics, if anything it comes across that he might just rather assume they don't exist and remove any possible space for them to plausibly exist. For that particular reason I think Jim's conceptual framework is complex while staying elegant enough for individuals and moderators to work with practically while Aaron's hides behind complication. As with other conversations (like that between Mary Harrington and Paul Kingsnorth) the egregore idea would suggest that unknowns populate most of the landscape in the dynamics of memeplexes
I liked the differentiations of moderation types Jim laid out. Good points. I didn’t like Aaron at first- found it all a bit smug, as if anyone who hasn’t lined up with his views on what’s safe is morally bankrupt- but ended up agreeing with him on a lot and seeing jim as actually a bit absolutist, but again- two perspectives hashing it out. The safety side and the “duke it out” side as I see it. I do find the constant moral high ground almost frustration and condescension of people like Aaron off putting , even if they are right about certain ideas being harmful. I agree that a lot of the teacher/groomer stuff is overblown and over exaggerated like with lobs of tik tok and Matt Walsh type right wing stuff, but the Aaron guy almost presents it as there’s no concern there whatsoever, which… isn’t smart. Almost reminds me of like Tim pool on Rogan era style argument where they focus only on real world damage without addressing the ideas or issues or concerns people are raising. Should innocent teachers get fired for mentioning their husband if they’re a man, no. But obv some stuff is unacceptable in a kindergarten classroom. Haven’t watched this channel in a while, neat convo
Ps I actually agree with Aaron that Qanon can destroy peoples lives and even if they seem happy, they’re delusional and terrified and that’s… not happy. Jim seems quite the non judgemental fellow 😀
I actually met a couple of QAnon individuals the other day; They seemed happy enough; they told me Hillary Clinton was cloned by aliens & I laughed for about five minutes but they Took it in stride (probably used to it) & have an almost utopic vision of the future. I don’t know how well they represented the majority, but I think they put a lot of faith in an almost prophetic plan that makes them optimistic. They told me “they” were going to pay off all American’s mortgages… which made me want to join them 😉😀👍🏻
Nice discussion thanks!
Whole conversation summed up in the end closing exchange over trump and Twitter.
Felt frustrated listening to this podcast episode. I've never heard of either of these two men, and while listening i kept wanting to hear Jim elaborate his interesting points more fully.
Excellent topic that needs discussed more, but I'd find Vervaeke/Vanderklay/Pageau gathered together to discuss the Greek/biblical/symbolism etc of the word moderation (~ prudence/sophrosyne) much more important.
This conversation felt a bit bogged down in minutia, but well worth the listen because wrestling in the minutia we learn alot. Thanks all.
Change the name of 'moderation' to Censorship.
And no, no censorship.
This is exactly the kind of thought terminating cliché we need to move beyond. Let's up our game.
@@RebelWisdom well.. then dont clickbait with 'free speech'.
You cliché more by disgusing 'moderation' with plain censorship and invite two censors, you cliché by using french words to sound more intelligent at some basic concept of free speech, parce que l' Ignorance est mère de tous les maux. We see you and we could use the same game, just eliminating your speech as well, in a world of censorship there are no innocent for your channel is also under the scope of the 'overlord eye'.. its a slipery slope this game and any pseudophilosophical argument for it...
Aristotle would turn on his grave hearing this low level discussion. At least be blunt about it and use the correct word: censorship.
Shame.
Lol. Difference between Q and BLM is.... one believes a specific group controls and produces outcomes that benefits itself.... no Rabowitz, on that definition they are the same.
Also he later admits some of CRTC is dangerous, but we shouldnt judge the whole. Earlier however he had problems with platforming people on some issues but not addressing what could be problematic. Cant have it both ways!
i would argue that if people are having problems when distinguishing ie. holocaust denial as a bad idea maybe the issue is not moderation of public discourse but the capture of education by power structures of any kind.
Thank you, I found Mr Rutt and helpful counterbalance to my own freespeech absolutism and looking forward to listen more to him.
I may be totally wrong on this, but Qanon seems to have the hallmarks of an silly internet joke. The fact people took it so seriously (and tried to silence it) is probably what gave it power and even created some genuine believers, I'm sure it will fizzle out faster without Rabinowitz' help.
Well done for hosting a conversation which looks under the surface of this most vital topic. Some interesting and revealing disagreements here, but odd that Aaron finds it reasonable to categorise QAnon as uniquely different dangerous ideology, but when challenged by reference to Antifa/ BLM, who literally set fire to many of our cities, he refuses to discuss it on grounds of 'whataboutism'. The toxic perspective of Antifa/BLM is undeniable and it is incorrect to assert that they are not organised. To exclude the comparison is evading the issue. Either all views are moderated or none. Aaron wants to moderate what he does not like, and his criteria of 'bad things (e. G. Trump and Jones) ' is mere subjective opinion. In general I would vote for Mr Rutt.
Antifa/ BLM are a reactionry group. They did not specifically go out to set fire to buildings and create violence. You're committing a part-whole fallacy, in the case of Antifa/BLM protests or any protests there will be some antisocial elements. But that's not the case with QAnan, Proud Boys, Bugalloo Boys etc - they are in whole antisocial groups(they have their own militias), they were there to take down the parliament. Their whole ideology is toxic because they were protesting on the basis of a lie that the election was stolen. That's the difference.
Antifa /BLM were not based on conspiracy theories. They were a reactionary groups to facists movements like KKK, Nazis etc
At first I had a hard time understanding what you were trying to communicate, but after listening to the discussion I can see what you're saying. Aaron is picking and choosing a little to much here.
@@Preetvnd your reply illustrates the difficulty. I would argue that Antifa / BLM are both based on untruths (perhaps myths rather than lies, although myths propagated with malignant intent are indistinguishable from lies.) A platform which blocks one untruth while propagating another (on the basis of mere opinion or preference) will have a polarising effect. Mr Rudd's proposal for three categories overcomes this difficulty.
@@diogenes9524 What are the myths/lies that BLM & Antifa are based on?
@@Preetvnd Too many to list here, but for example the BLM / CRT agenda views the history of America through a lens of slavery, and allows 'whiteness' no redeeming features worth celebrating. The idea that slavery has made America uniquely evil is a myth. The reality is that most societies, including non-White societies, have profited from slavery at some time in history. It is a myth that all white people are guilty. It has been shown that the further to the left are the views of (2020) opinion poll subjects, the further from reality is their belief about how many unarmed black people are shot by police each year. Among those respondents who described themselves as 'very Liberal', about 40% believed that the figure was 'over 10,000.' The true number that year was 10. Police racism, which undoubtedly exists, has been exaggerated then mythologised. People believe what they want to believe, and we are being fed false narratives about ourselves. Antifa for example have extended the definition of 'fascist' to include Trump supporters or even any Conservatives. That is a false distortion. A falsehood is a lie. It is arguable that Antifa are now close to Fascism through their supresssion of dissenting opinion, and their elevation of racial or intersectional identity over the individual. These arguments cannot be dismissed as 'part/whole fallacies,' since there is no such thing as a100% homogenous and consistent political ideology, and where exactly the line should be drawn is a matter of opinion. Which is where we came in. Perhaps you believe that your opinion is correct, and mine is not, and maybe you conclude that I have less right to express mine. Mr Rudd's proposal assumes that authoritarianism is a greater danger than expressing a bad opinion.
Completely laughable deflections on the substantive points about CRT and wokeness around the 40 to 50 minute mark by ETV. But then again, acknowledging the actual harms (which play into stuff like the ‘groomer’ label as they’ve substantively led to changes in educational content, though I agree that term is an empty and harmful attack) would throw off his entire argument for regulating people’s speech.
Didnt seem to hit the mark. The conversation devolved into, what seemed to me, fixed positions. It was interesting but towards the end i found myself anxious.
Aaron continuously revealed the motivations behind his motivated reasoning.
I can decide with my friends!
Aaron, Jim, always interesting to listen to smart people who argue for a living. What I want and expected is: Aaron - define "low hanging fruit ". Jim - name some decorum rules that would trip Trump and Jones. THAT is what WE (and maybe Musk) desperately need to get a handle on. Of course, if the Parties continue to sell our future, Trump will be the first of many, and Twitter SHOULD be a dumpster fire.
There is real harm being done by the stuff taught to children in schools nowadays. I agree that parents are right to be concerned
We should not be "allowing" people to run around with whatever guns they want ~@41:50, he has great wisdom, or he knows those with great wisdom, who can decide who should be "allowed".
Amen on the decorum moderation point. I have dipped my toe in some of the free speech Twitter alternatives like Gab and Gettr, and it can be a little..... Yikes.
I appreciate you very much David, you are my favourite person on youTube and inside the heterodox space
I could sit down and enjoy a beer with Jim. That's my case for him.
I'm roughly half way through. All I can say about Aaron is how I can't help but feel this tragedy for how far removed academics like himself are from how the general public thinks. I don't use Twitter and hopefully never feel a need to, but his biases are too strong in regards to this Twitter moderation debate.
That is cliché to say, but there's a point where biases need to be rectified when what you want to weigh against an opposing view is far outweighed by the evidence in favor of your oppositions view. His concern for QAnon is an example of this.
I think you can make a case that part of the reason for the rise of QAnon, which doesn't seem remotely popular in the first place, was DUE to the exponential rise in censorship that we witnessed over the last several years. "First they came for Alex Jones" has now aged well and that should not have been the case had things improved in the true sense.
Aaron is doing his job - he is not actually arguing what he thinks is best for the country