Mark Gagnon

Letting the public rate articles, sort of let crowd wisdom decide whether or not things are good or not.

That makes sense.

Indefinite blocking, this is, I think, similar to one of the other points.

Sure.

You know, not, you know, users or editors that are basically just like banned off the platform for wrong think.

These are all very interesting.

I can admit that the challenge of...

understanding and uh sort of implementing policy to capture the totality of you know human knowledge is extremely difficult it is and i mean even just the philosophy of epistemology of you know the the philosophy of what is noble of knowledge and where it comes from is challenging and has been debated ad nauseum but i do think that your commitment to neutrality is

really admirable.

And I think it is probably a more difficult position in many ways.

And I think ultimately hinges on, to me, I see it very much analogous to the free speech sort of argument, right?

There are people that are strong free speech absolutists that say, in the marketplace of ideas, everything is able to go and that good ideas will trounce on bad ideas.

And that ultimately, with the fullness of information, the good things will sort of matriculate through.

And I retain that in a theoretical sense where I'm like, that is the way that things should be.

But I do also see the other side and I understand the concern that perhaps not all people are rational agents and that we don't always operate with like pure logic and reason and that people can sort of be seduced by very evil agendas and bad ideas because of their emotional predilections and the way that they feel about the world.

And that can also be scary.

So I recognize the counter sort of argument to this that, you know, no, things have to be framed in a certain way to sort of quell any type of ideological, you know, I guess, wandering into bad territory.

So I don't know.

I'm conflicted.

Yeah, I can see that being the case.