Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech and Liberty

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 170 posts

Re: Tech and Liberty

#41

Post by smacktoward »

_xnmw wrote: post #29
thrower123 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is decidedly ahistorical. Anonymous publishing was rampant in the 18th century. Broadsheets, pamphlets, political screeds, and all manner of printings were published anonymously or under pseudonyms in the time period, not least because there were consequences for putting your name explicitly on subversive materials.

Those ideas were still subject to a much greater level of peer review before they could be redistributed. You couldn't get a broadsheet or pamphlet in front of millions of eyes without the implicit approval of tens of thousands of voluntary distributors.

You keep saying "peer review" but I'm not sure how it applies here. The main way information was distributed in the era of the Federalist Papers was through newspapers, and at the time newspapers were almost entirely enterprises set up by political activists to advance the line of their particular faction. The Federalist Papers were written by several prominent members of the Federalists (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party), a movement that would go on to become the first real American political party, and published anonymously in Federalist-leaning newspapers. There was no "peer review" in the sense of any of their opponents reviewing them before publication.

If you want a good sense for what newspapering was like in the early American republic, I highly recommend Richard Rosenfeld's book American Aurora (https://www.amazon.com/American-Aurora-Democratic-Republican...), the story of a newspaper that opposed the Federalists and the price its editor paid for that opposition.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#42

Post by lliamander »

_xnmw wrote: post #28
jldugger wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The very fact that publishing an opinion anonymously, at scale, was nearly impossible, prevented the development of many sordid, dark, and "evil" thoughts from reaching the point of public discourse. I find it somewhat amusing that you say this in response to an article citing the Federalist papers.

The very fact that those papers made it to the publications means they were peer-reviewed and agreed to be redistributed by public institutions. Anonymous internet sites are not peer-reviewed.

Let's not call this "peer-review" as if it were some sort of scientific process.

What you're talking about is a social acceptability test. Now, that's fine, so far as it goes. Every society needs mores and norms to govern behavior (and speech) in order to function. But let's not suppose that suppressing an individual's freedom to express thoughts not pre-approved is going to result in a net win for truth.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#43

Post by smacktoward »

bilbo0s wrote: post #12
lordleft wrote: post #7

A powerful and provocative article. I love the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." I am a bit of a libertarian when it comes to civil liberties -- I flinch at any circumscription of speech, even when it is noxious. Still, for a v…

When you consider how the common man behaved during the rise of Nazism, and even during the height of its power, you have to conclude that the truncheon really wasn't necessary. As hard as it may be for us to accept today, there were normal, regular women who would swear out completely false statements against some poor woman down the street to get that woman a free trip to a camp. Normal, regular, everyday guys swea…

> If a population mired in pettiness becomes enamored with Nazism? Well, their punishment will be that they have to live under Nazism. Just wish them good luck with that.

The problem is that Nazism tends to hurt people beyond just those who chose to live with it.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#44

Post by dave_b »

lliamander wrote: post #25

This describes precisely my own reaction to Munroe's comic. I mean, it's certainly true that discussion forums benefit from moderation to remove trolls. However, Munroe myopically assumes that the only people being de-platformed are trolls. Even if some of the people being de-platformed are provocateurs, the fact is that there's still a difference between excluding people from what is essentially a private club (as m…

Progressives of the past were all about the principle of free speech. Now that they have the power to control the public space, all they seem to care about are the technicalities of the first amendment.

Arguments like that in the comic revel in enforcing groupthink because the author thinks it will be used in a way he finds favorable. If you take a step back, it’s obvious that every censorious organization has very strong reasons for silencing badthinkers, and they use the same type of self-righteous language when justifying it. Just look at how The Chinese government talks about Hong Kong.

edit: Point being, either you uphold the principle of free speech, as argued in the linked article, or you end up with those who control the platforms dictating their own worldview. They will always come up with some smug justification for why society will fall apart if they don’t, and anyone who’s silenced deserves it anyway.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#45

Post by SamBam »

smacktoward wrote: post #33
SamBam wrote: post #2

I'm confused by the initial comparison between Hamilton and XKCD > Alexander Hamilton was against the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment. This famous xkcd comic explains why: They seems to be saying very different things: Hamilton (as I understand it) is saying the First Amendment is unnecessary (and even dangerous) because the constitution already provides no power by which to regulate speech. XKCD, ho…

It's important to remember the context in which the Federalist Papers were written. The Constitution had been written but not yet adopted, and American politics was divided between Federalists, who believed that the Constitution was fine as it was and should be adopted without modification, and Anti-Federalists (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism ), who felt it gave too much power to the national gover…

Yes, I realize that. I was merely addressing the first sentence: "Alexander Hamilton was against the Bill of Rights.... This famous xkcd comic explains why:"

Re: Tech and Liberty

#46

Post by program_whiz »

Its crazy how at the time, people argued that since there was no power given in the constitution to do something, that it would never happen (i.e. writing down that speech was protected was unnecessary since there was no power to reulate it). Its interesting how the system has figured out the "loopholes" in the document and used it to essentially control everything that wasn't expressly forbidden (and even have power over those things to some degree -- e.g. weapons, speech, religion).

I guess it turned out Hamilton was partially right, since it has eventually been interpreted as an implicit right of the government to regulate everything not explicitly given as a right. But at the same time, I can imagine without the "protection" ammendments, we'd probably still have even more rules and regulations (I doubt implicit mention of powers was the instigating factor).

Re: Tech and Liberty

#47

Post by SamBam »

_xnmw wrote: post #40
commandlinefan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pamphleteers reached nearly every single living human in their time and successfully altered the entire course of human history, in a way that was considered apocalyptic at the time. Free speech in the "say what's on your mind on the internet" sense is EXACTLY what the first amendment was drafted for.

Point taken. However my argument about the the quality of the content of the speech still holds. Sure, pamphleteers could reach the ends of the earth, but the they couldn't publish anything they wanted. Child pornography could not spread by pamphlet.

I don't see why you keep bringing up child pornography. Facebook and Twitter don't allow people to spread it, and no one is suggesting they should. It's entirely a strawman.

As for whether "one person" currently has more reach that the pamphleteers did, I also disagree. A pamphlet is only spread if people are agreeing with its content. Likewise a tweet or facebook post. A billion people post inane content every day. We see a microscopic fraction of it. That is an equivalent form of "peer review" as your pamphlet distributors.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#48

Post by smacktoward »

SamBam wrote: post #45
smacktoward wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to remember the context in which the Federalist Papers were written. The Constitution had been written but not yet adopted, and American politics was divided between Federalists, who believed that the Constitution was fine as it was and should be adopted without modification, and Anti-Federalists (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism ), who felt it gave too much power to the national gover…

Yes, I realize that. I was merely addressing the first sentence: "Alexander Hamilton was against the Bill of Rights.... This famous xkcd comic explains why:"

Oh, apologies for misreading you then!

On that point, I think the problem is just that Thompson doesn't understand this context. He's treating Hamilton's objection to an amendment prohibiting speech as if it arose from a desire for broader protection of speech, rather than from a desire for no specific protection of speech at all.

Hamilton's argument that a specific protection for speech would be counterproductive strikes me as having been pretty comprehensively debunked by the last two centuries of American history, in which the First Amendment has repeatedly proved to be a critical shield for speech of all sorts of kinds. America today would look very different if Hamilton had won this argument.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#50

Post by lliamander »

dieterrams2 wrote: post #35
lliamander wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

igammarays seems to be most concerned with "bad ideas" being spread by the recently unfettered access given to the common person to publish to the world at large. There was probably a similar grievance during the development of the printing press, and given that many people here would probably disagree with the "mainstream" ideas of even the recent past, it's hard for me to imagine how a renewed effort at gatekeeping…

I only reference the article for its quote from Mill, in which truth-value is a concern in a situation Mill happened to think warranted the suppression of falsehoods. Since Mill ultimately justified his beliefs in terms of utilitarianism, I do think the echo-chamber effect of social media and the proliferation of fake news would make him rethink things. Of course, what matters isn't so much what Mill would think (we…

> I only reference the article for its quote from Mill, in which truth-value is a concern in a situation Mill happened to think warranted the suppression of falsehoods.

Mill's main reason for conceding an exception to the freedom of speech wasn't the falsehood of the speech, but the threat of mob action. I stand by my statement: Mill would be more concerned about cancel culture rather than fake news. Of course, the latter can feed into the former, but again the question comes down to whether we are looking at genuine incitement.

> And while Ben cites the usual opinions on the subject, I don't think he's made a sufficient effort to grapple with the different media/discourse environment we live in today. That doesn't mean he must necessarily come to a different conclusion, but it's a mistake not to give it more consideration.

I disagree? That's a difficult criticism to respond to given it's vagueness: like trying to put fog in a box. You could criticize Ben for his lack of originality, but I think there is value in reiterating a truth, even an obvious truth, in a clear and persuasive manner.

As for his thoughtfulness, are you perhaps just nonplussed that he sounds more certain of his convictions than you think he should be? Outside specific criticisms of his arguments, I'd have to say his position seems well thought out. I'd say that even if I thought he was wrong.

Post reply on HN