Considering how much of our existence is online these days, it seems like denying people the means to participate is almost like denying their right to exist.

I’d like to see a world where everyone has the capability to shape this digital space in a fair and accessible manner.

  • Cosmoooooooo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    12 days ago

    Absolutely. People should have access to information. Scientifically proven information.

    If you can’t prove it, then shut the fuck up.

    Every publication is a billionaire’s 'national inquirer" of random bullshit. Every fucking online platform is heavily influenced by, if not owned by rich assholes. The christian nazi propaganda never, ever stops through all forms of media.

    Fuck them all. Prove it or shut up.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 days ago

      Science doesn’t happen just one time. Something being “proven” is generally part of rigorous math, not other sciences. It grows and changes, dissent being a big part of it, over time. I agree with you that people should have access to information, but limiting which is fraught with problems.

        • theherk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          No. I support the publication and scholarly refereeing process, over politicians being given control over what is “proven” and what is “misinformation”. The problem is not that misinformation is allowed, but rather that governments are captured by oligarchs and imbeciles that push that misinformation.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            12 days ago

            As I just eluded to, no one suggested politicians censor information.

            Last I checked “shut up” wasn’t an argument for passing censorship laws

            • theherk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              I may have misunderstood, in which case I apologize. But when I read people should have access to “scientifically proven” information, I took that to mean somebody would be the arbiter of that. I otherwise completely agree.

        • theherk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 days ago

          Is it? Or is it “generally recognized as safe” based on research showing a few standard deviations of safe usage. I’m just saying “proven” isn’t a good term when determining what information people should have access to. I’m really not trying to be argumentative here, just precise.

          • dangercake@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            12 days ago

            I’m totally agreeing with you. Science isn’t a one off thing some strong man can shoot simple answers with, it’s an ongoing process which requires constant questioning. See also DDT, leaded petrol, CFC refrigerants etc. These would all be unquestioningly added as canon in the “only approved facts allowed” system