Regulating Disinformation? We’ve Been Debating the Wrong Question

  1. The setting needs to be inclusive and safe — such that dehumanizing language and incitements to violence are prohibited — even (and especially) if it comes from elected officials. Hostility is silencing, and therefore incompatible with democratic discourse.
  2. People need to enter the conversation willing to have their mind changed. In other words, fundamentally inert people can’t participate. Letting these folks enter democratic discourse would be like playing a game of soccer with people who insist on standing with their feet planted on the field while refusing to move: they end the game for everyone.
  3. Participants strive for consensus, not just self-expression. Rather than parallel streams of assertions, participants engage with each other to arrive at new ideas about how to understand and address unresolved issues.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Anita Varma

Anita Varma

More from Medium

The S in ESG

The hidden life of our used stuff

An old school bus at Old Car City USA.

Why Should I Care About The Rukun Negara?