The premise of this piece is simple, the combination of two uncontroversial ideas. But the implications for understanding our time and perhaps others are magnificent. The clarity this union provides is a rope that people who want to reach for a better world cannot do without.
The first thread is a juridical doctrine in First Amendment law known as "the marketplace of ideas." Here the author cites to Oliver Wendell Holmes and draws a through line to the Rehnquist court. It's close to an idiom at this point in American culture, though its underlying meaning can become muddled.
Marketplace of ideas cases reason that the First Amendment protection of speech automatically produces value for society based on Darwinian logic. The explicit assumption of these judicial titans is that weak or bad ideas will vanish like weeds next to the virile and hardy vitality of valid or strong ideas. (You start to see where I'm going, here.) Additional factors promulgated by the Supreme Court include humility towards what may or may not be true, defense against tyranny, the value of diverse opinions, and the distinction between offensive speech and acts that transgress others' material rights.
The other idea is newer but even less controversial. MIkaly C. wrote the Filter Bubble in 1995 or something. Our online communication systems perform multiple functions that radicalize the conveyance of ideas. First, they prioritize outrage. As a means to boost engagement, Facebook, Twitter, and other "social media" companies put evocative text and messages in front of us. False information spreads more quickly that corrections, etc. Secondly, these networks calcify factions around this communication structure. Trump fans unfriend blue friends and vice versa. Thridly, they present the world as though it is what we see. Our new radicalized window becomes what we consider the world to consist of. Cue the video from the impassioned country singer.
The first thread is a juridical doctrine in First Amendment law known as "the marketplace of ideas." Here the author cites to Oliver Wendell Holmes and draws a through line to the Rehnquist court. It's close to an idiom at this point in American culture, though its underlying meaning can become muddled.
Marketplace of ideas cases reason that the First Amendment protection of speech automatically produces value for society based on Darwinian logic. The explicit assumption of these judicial titans is that weak or bad ideas will vanish like weeds next to the virile and hardy vitality of valid or strong ideas. (You start to see where I'm going, here.) Additional factors promulgated by the Supreme Court include humility towards what may or may not be true, defense against tyranny, the value of diverse opinions, and the distinction between offensive speech and acts that transgress others' material rights.
The other idea is newer but even less controversial. MIkaly C. wrote the Filter Bubble in 1995 or something. Our online communication systems perform multiple functions that radicalize the conveyance of ideas. First, they prioritize outrage. As a means to boost engagement, Facebook, Twitter, and other "social media" companies put evocative text and messages in front of us. False information spreads more quickly that corrections, etc. Secondly, these networks calcify factions around this communication structure. Trump fans unfriend blue friends and vice versa. Thridly, they present the world as though it is what we see. Our new radicalized window becomes what we consider the world to consist of. Cue the video from the impassioned country singer.