Reply to post:

Section 230 supporters turn on it, its critics rely on it. Up is down, black is white in the crazy world of US law

LucreLout Silver badge

But this presumes intelligent listeners which we don't have.

As does one man one vote.

Perhaps we could return the internet / web to its early days where it had a much higher average IQ [1] and simply regulate access to the top half of the IQ spectrum? The question then becomes, if we're exposing only those better equipped to understand an argument to the internet, why would we not do the same with voting.

Unfortunately dogma and propaganda will always be with us. Unless we're willing to reorder society around intelligence, with all the social upheaval and disenfranchisement that entails, then there's really nothing we can do about it. Farcebook is just the latest platform, but it can trace its roots straight back to Pravda. Society is designed ground up for those in the average to one standard deviation below average bracket, which is why we have so much health and safety law, dumbing down of education, attainment, and entertainment (I give you Joey Essex). While that may make for an infuriating experience for those with a high intelligence, they're outliers in "society", which is really just the mob.

1 - Back in the early days of the web it was mostly academics, scientists, and those pursuing a higher education back when degrees didn't come in cereal boxes. You'd have been looking at a typical IQ of around 1 standard deviation above average (115). The gradually changed with AOL, and once broadband became a thing and everyone started using it, the average IQ dropped to that of the populace at large (100).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020