tomfoolery wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:34 am
Before you jump down my throat, I’m not suggesting the government be the one to restrict news. Libertarians always say the free market has the answer so let’s go with a free market solution.
I’m proposing it might be in our best interest as a society to limit some news if that news can cause more harm than good. It’s illegal to shout fire in a movie theater. The ensuing stampede is what kills people. Look at the toilet paper shortages from last year, it’s mob mentality based on fear. There was no shortage! But the false belief it might occur is what led to one.
Take the news of the JNJ vaccine causing a handful of blood clots. I don’t feel that news should be circulated freely. First, we don’t know that the vaccine had anything to do with the blood clots. Millions got the vaccine fine with no issue. Statistically speaking if millions of people all ate green jelly beans and 5 of them died from a rare medical blood clot, we wouldn’t blame the jelly beans. Lookup “p-hacking” for more info.
My concern is people see this news about the vaccine and decide not to get any vaccine. Which is bad for society as a whole since herd immunity only comes from vaccines. More deaths, no hospital beds, terrible for society overall.
Look back to Weimar Germany where they had hyperinflation that led to Hitler taking power. They blamed the Jews, falsely, justifying the Holocaust. That’s an example of news that’s dangerous. If some kind of non-government free market coalition blocked the news of hyperinflation, then WW2 could have been averted.
So libertarians of Gyroscopic forums, I challenge you. Use the free market to propose common-sense solutions on how we can block unsafe news from public consumption to avoid bad societal outcomes.
Since you are generally so scrupulous in the accuracy of all that you write...you may be interested in the following:
Shouting fire in a crowded theater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_ ... ed_theater