system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The Marketplace of Ideas is a horrible metaphor for how free speech actually works

The marketplace of ideas, as I understand it just to be clear, is basically the idea that we should have as few restrictions as possible so that the best ideas are free to beat the bad ones in fair and open debate. From this comes the idea that all speech should be free because even if it's bad people will come to realize that it's false and unworthy of consideration so long as good ideas are allowed as well.

Whether or not some forms of speech should be restricted is a separate issue, but I do have problems with the mechanism through which free speech (and in particular free speech absolutism) is often justified.

The MOI supposes that ideas, if they are good and well-articulated, will win out over bad ones, but to me it seems as though the very existence of long-running political debates *at all* disproves this. If good ideas truly won out over bad ones, then the only reason why someone could possibly disagree with someone else would be if they don't know their opponent's positions and reasonings, seeing as they'd convert upon exposure to the better idea.

Obviously, people still disagree even if they know all the opposing opinions, and of course there are plenty of reasons why people believe or do something that have nothing to do with rhetoric (such as personal self-interest, identity, party loyalty, tradition, nationalism, etc.). This has led me to believe that free speech is generally ineffective under the MOI model, at least with specific regards to large political issues like gun control or abortion. The increased sorting of online communities into "echo chambers" and "media bubbles" further convinces me the MOI does not function as intended: the premise that good ideas win out only works if people aren't already satisfied with the bad ones and never seek out anything better, whatever that may be. 

For all the talk of "discourse", most op-eds or opinion videos seem to talk completely past each other. Talk-show panels do not negotiate positions with other talk show panels: they speak to their audience about how they're already right. Even articles and videos made in specific response to someone else seem to be intended more to their own audience than that of someone else, a way of bashing the other side than trying to communicate to it. Even in literal debates, the purpose seems to be more about "winning" than convincing someone they're wrong. The Presidential debates aren't so that the candidates can all discuss what the right policies are and come to genuine compromise. It's so that they can humiliate and destroy their opponents on national television for the pleasure of their followers at home, as well as show party elites who to watch out for or throw their weight behind.

Rather, I'd argue that the purpose of free speech is not convincing others that they're wrong, but spurring people who already lean in your direction to act. For example: Fox News doesn't write op-eds because they want to convince liberal readers to become conservative. They write op-eds to fire up their conservative readers, because that's mostly who reads what they make. If they can convince their base that they're right, it makes them more passionate to act on the things they already wanted. Vice versa for liberal publications: they don't call this or that conservative politician bigoted because they want Republicans to not vote for them out of disgust, but because they want their Democratic base to vote for the liberal candidate.

Oftentimes, speech will be brushed off as "virtue-signaling" or "fake outrage", but I think that this is actually closer to the actual function of speech than the MOI: it helps show others what your beliefs are and inspires people who already agree with you to become angry enough to actually do something. Very few articles seem to be honest attempts to convert people and just seem to be attempts to rally people who already agree with each other. Even articles like "# Why <insert policy here> is best" really seem to come off as more like "# reasons why you're right" the way I see it.
gpt
>The MOI supposes that ideas, if they are good and well-articulated, will win out over bad ones, but to me it seems as though the very existence of long-running political debates at all disproves this. 

Not really, the goal isn't to totally eradicate a false belief (obviously there are a couple flat earthers out there) but to allow superior ideas to on average win over time.  Just as inferior products can last as a niche product for a long time before eventually disappearing, bad beliefs can last a long time as well.  Sometimes it takes weeks, sometimes decades for better beliefs to win.  Sometimes worse beliefs are the ones that win.  That's okay, we just need on average better beliefs to typically come out on top.