Marketplace of ideas
Marketplace of ideas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas
Analogous to the economic concept of a free market.
The main idea is:
Truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse. Ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population.
The Marketplace of Ideas is a horrible metaphor for how free speech actually works
The author posts this and challenges others to change his/her view.
As I understand it, the marketplace of ideas 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.
Marketplace of ideas 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 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.
Responses:
The OP supposes that ideas, if they are good and well-articulated, will win out over bad ones
Not necessarily, or at least not in the way you seem to imagine.
Marketplaces are not places where the good and righteous and virtuous always win out over all competitors. Markets are places where sellers are matched with buyers. Sometimes this means that a health-conscious vegan is matched with a local organic lettuce farmer, and sometimes this means that an overweight shut in is matched with a multinational corportaion selling ‘chips’ made primarily of annealed corn syrup.
So ‘bad’ things can happen in market, it’s not a guarantee that everything will be perfect. But we like markets for three main reasons.
The first is simple liberty - people can do what they want, and that’s inherently better than outsiders telling them what to do, if you value freedom.
The second is epistemic humility - you may think the lettuce farmer is ‘good’ and the chip seller is ‘bad’, but what makes you think you’re the one who knows what ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are? What if you’re wrong? Maybe it’s safer to let everyone vote with their dollar/attention, and let the wisdom of crowds sort it out.
And the third is that markets work - they raise standards of living faster than any other economic model, and are more resilient and robust to boot.
In terms of ideas, maybe the ideal case where a perfect philosopher-king hands down true perfect knowledge to the masses in a form that is infinitely understandable and motivating, but we don’t have access to that. What we get when we shut down the market is some unitary authority - the government, the church, etc - forcing their views on everyone else, and that almost always ends in stagnation or massacre. Whatever flaws a market has, it’s better than the available alternatives.
the very existence of long-running political debates at all disproves this.
Markets do not trend towards single winners. After many decades of competition, Coke and Pepsi still exist; and more generally pizza and pasta still exist.
As long as people have difference preferences, needs, and experiences, markets will cater different products to different people. The marketplace of ideas is exactly like a real economic market in this way.
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.
You’re missing several important reasons why people don’t converge on the same ideas.
The first, and most important, is that they don’t hold the same beliefs about the facts of the world. This could be because they each know facts that the other doesn’t, or because they disagree about the truth of the matter. If you disagree on the facts, you won’t come to the same conclusions; and the world is far too complicated for everyone to know all the same facts as each other, no matter how long they talk to each other about the topic.
Another is values differences. An idea is only ‘good’ under a given set of values by which you judge things to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ - and there is no universal standard which everyone shares. Even if we assumed that market places should lead to perfect convergence, we would only expect convergence between people to the extent that they share the same values - but a good idea to someone who cares about punishment will never be a good idea to someone who cares about rehabilitation. They’ll always argue, and the marketplace will always cater to them each seperately.