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

51–60 of 170 posts

Re: Tech and Liberty

#51

Post by harimau777 »

_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.

How might we change/regulate internet communication in such a way that someone could anonymously get a message out on the scale of a pamphlet but not on the scale of a tweet or social media post?

Stated another way, my concern is that any changes to free speech might overcorrect and result in it being difficult to anonymously get an unpopular message out to even a modest audience.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#52

Post by 50656E6973 »

_xnmw wrote: post #15

The First Amendment was written at a time when the constraints of the available technology created "natural" boundaries as to what kind of speech could spread in a society. The very fact that publishing an opinion anonymously (edit: I should say without peer-review of any sort), at scale, was nearly impossible, prevented the development of many sordid, dark, and "evil" thoughts from reaching the point of public disco…

>The unique problem of the internet is that it allows bad ideas to infect, fester, and mutate in the minds of others at a speed never seen before, without the natural safeguards that we've always had: peer-review and social acceptance. That leads to a spill-over of bad ideas into the public discourse which, in turn, resets society's definition for what kind of ideas are acceptable. A few rapid cycles of this, and we got our Post Truth World

This is precisely the same logic held by the Church during the Inquisition as they were safeguarding Truth from the Scientific Revolution and the evil of the printing press.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#53

Post by dieterrams2 »

lliamander wrote: post #50
dieterrams2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

> Mill's main reason for conceding an exception to the freedom of speech wasn't the falsehood of the speech,

I didn’t say it was his main concern?

Mill’s reasoning ultimately rests on what principles he believes would result in the best outcome, from a utilitarian perspective. The point I’m making is that he wasn’t some free speech absolutist, but that an assessment of harm/utility undergirds his thinking, and that the different media environment would be something Mill would have to grapple with. And it could lead to an exception.

> 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.

You seem more concerned with defending Ben than thinking through what needs to be considered in this issue. Which is fine, I guess, but whether Ben has done an admirable job or not isn’t really what I care about.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#54

Post by harimau777 »

AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #49

Best part of this article is the linked medium post by Pat Ker. That was a good read: https://medium.com/@patkerr/why-i-think-xkcd-is-wrong-about-... . Less 'XKCD is wrong and stupid!' and more 'its not the full picture'

The way that I tend to think of it is that democracy is a type of society not just a form of government. That is a society is democratic not so much because they vote but because they follow ideals such as freedom of speech and self determination.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#55

Post by AdeptusAquinas »

harimau777 wrote: post #54
AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #49

Best part of this article is the linked medium post by Pat Ker. That was a good read: https://medium.com/@patkerr/why-i-think-xkcd-is-wrong-about-... . Less 'XKCD is wrong and stupid!' and more 'its not the full picture'

The way that I tend to think of it is that democracy is a type of society not just a form of government. That is a society is democratic not so much because they vote but because they follow ideals such as freedom of speech and self determination.

That's probably more of a distinction between individualism and collectivism, than democracy per se.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#56

Post by HBKXNCUO »

_xnmw wrote: post #15

The First Amendment was written at a time when the constraints of the available technology created "natural" boundaries as to what kind of speech could spread in a society. The very fact that publishing an opinion anonymously (edit: I should say without peer-review of any sort), at scale, was nearly impossible, prevented the development of many sordid, dark, and "evil" thoughts from reaching the point of public disco…

What are some of these "dark" "evil" "bad ideas" you believe are infecting, festering, and mutating in minds thanks to the internet?

Re: Tech and Liberty

#57

Post by stale2002 »

smacktoward wrote: post #31
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…

You're describing Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;…

> forfeit the right to shield yourself behind the document you're trying to tear up.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. They have taken on cases like this, many times. And they have ruled that one does not forfeit their rights, even if the person does not believe in those rights.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#58

Post by yourbandsucks »

dave_b wrote: post #44
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 s…

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Re: Tech and Liberty

#59

Post by motohagiography »

The principle itself is odd. It’s not clear how freedom to speak does not also cover that of association, and in turn, militating against the freedom of others. The threat of ostracization is essentially blackmail, and while not necessarily violent, there isn’t really a more succinct description. The right to blackmail probably wasn’t intended, but that’s what unpopular views are subject to today. It just didn’t scale before social media.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#60

Post by DuskStar »

_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.

Neither could info on birth control or abortions (or in fact most things we'd consider part of "sex ed" today), but we generally regard those restrictions as having been a bad idea.
Post reply on HN