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

UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

freespeechunion.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 204 posts

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#81

Post by Stupulous »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #47
Stupulous wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions, so the whole continuum must respect individual agency over others' speech.

Consider the level of crimes that must take place for that defense to come into play, much less the additional levels of magnitude before it ceases to be an actual defense. In our average, every-day life, it's quite possible to illegitimately harm people and escape retribution by using "I was just following orders" as a defense.

Escape retribution perhaps, but not responsibility. If your boss tells you to put a dark pattern in the sign-up page to get more personal data, you don't have to do it. If you do, you are putting getting paid ahead of doing the right thing. If someone points out that you did the wrong thing for selfish reasons, they are right, and "I was just doing what I was told" is no defense.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#82

Post by john_moscow »

pjc50 wrote: post #75
john_moscow wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, being offended at words is mostly a sign of one's own personal insecurity. Can you imagine a successful doctor or a business owner being seriously offended because someone on the Internet called them a bad word? I bet they would respond same way I do when my son calls me a "bad papa" for insisting he finishes lunch before getting a desert. The bigger, much bigger problem is the growing amount of people that…

> Can you imagine a successful doctor or a business owner being seriously offended because someone on the Internet called them a bad word? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chiropractic_Associati... : a journalist questioning some of the "alternative medicine" claims of chiropractors got them so offended they tried to sue him into silence. https://nypost.com/2019/12/31/alex-jones-to-pay-100k-in-sand... : as a fat…

I think, it would be fair to distinguish actually being offended, vs. using it to get a tangible financial gain.

To answer your last question, as a father I wouldn't be offended by someone spreading misinformation. I wouldn't try to police random 4channers talking whatever they want. But I would consider it just morally wrong for someone to profit from spreading it and, I would use the legal system to stop them, if it makes any sense.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#83

Post by MiroF »

raxxorrax wrote: post #72
MiroF wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you drastically underestimate stochasticity, the sheer number of people on twitter, and how actions at the margin can drive someone over a precipe.

I do think that more people were saved from suicide by having a community where they could just speak freely. That wouldn't necessarily be Twitter though.

The proliferation of online platforms where you can speak freely would explain the declining suicide rates we're seeing in the 21st century.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#84

Post by bananaface »

pjc50 wrote: post #77
yamrzou wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't hear about The Free Speech Union until now. I don't understand why you would consider it an ‘awful source’ to have on HN. Here is an article I found by one of its directors for a more balanced view: https://archive.fo/bAMqm

An article by one of the parties about themselves cannot possibly be "balanced".

Posting the party's personal defense in response to a criticism of said party sounds balanced to me.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#85

Post by pjc50 »

john_moscow wrote: post #82
pjc50 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you imagine a successful doctor or a business owner being seriously offended because someone on the Internet called them a bad word? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chiropractic_Associati... : a journalist questioning some of the "alternative medicine" claims of chiropractors got them so offended they tried to sue him into silence. https://nypost.com/2019/12/31/alex-jones-to-pay-100k-in-sand... : as a fat…

I think, it would be fair to distinguish actually being offended, vs. using it to get a tangible financial gain. To answer your last question, as a father I wouldn't be offended by someone spreading misinformation. I wouldn't try to police random 4channers talking whatever they want. But I would consider it just morally wrong for someone to profit from spreading it and, I would use the legal system to stop them, if i…

> distinguish actually being offended

... how?

(There's the "reasonable person would find this offensive" test, which appears in various places, but libel is specifically about reputational injury)

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#86

Post by rayiner »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #66
rayiner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I think decentralization and legal liability are better solutions. Drop section 230 and it becomes legally fraught and prohibitively expensive for Facebook to allow disinformation and hate groups to organize on its platform. No it doesn’t. Because of free speech laws in the US, there is no legal liability for whatever it is you are calling “disinformation and hate groups.” Moderation has created remedies agains…

> No it doesn’t. Because of free speech laws in the US, there is no legal liability for whatever it is you are calling “disinformation and hate groups.” Moderation has created remedies against speech that have never existed before Section 230 absolves online platforms that feature user generated content from publisher liabilities, by revoking it facebook would be liable for everything on its platform. For example if…

Only very narrow kinds of disinformation that would meet the extremely high standards for libel in the US. Most of what is deemed “disinformation” or “hate speech” on Facebook would not be actionable.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#87

Post by _jal »

bennyp101 wrote: post #74
_jal wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scolds and prudes who are honestly concerned with Little Johnny are just stalking horses. This is about what it always is: power, control and money.

Not sure where the money would come from (other than backhand "take this content off") but yes, it would very well be seen as a move to limit the information - and keep those social media bubbles going

Controlling information is how people become stinking rich. Think about it. Either on a very context-specific moment (think deal-signing) or on a very large scale (think Putin), large fortunes are made via information asymmetries.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#88

Post by rayiner »

burlesona wrote: post #65
rayiner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I think decentralization and legal liability are better solutions. Drop section 230 and it becomes legally fraught and prohibitively expensive for Facebook to allow disinformation and hate groups to organize on its platform. No it doesn’t. Because of free speech laws in the US, there is no legal liability for whatever it is you are calling “disinformation and hate groups.” Moderation has created remedies agains…

Australia is a good model for proportional representation. At its simplest, congressional districts would become larger multi-winner districts with ranked choice voting. The top N vote getters become representatives. The expected outcome would then be that districts would tend to have 1-2 representatives from each major party, and specifically that we’d end up with more parties as alternatives to red and blue. So per…

I had never thought of multi-winner districts. And thank you for the reference!

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#89

Post by nindalf »

macinjosh wrote: post #10
umvi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem with freedom is that people abuse it and cause harm to others." Edit: (to be clear, I do not personally believe this, just offering a little insight as to how the "not insignificant majority" think)

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words are just words. One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way.

By this logic, Osama bin Laden did nothing wrong. Sure he inspired young men to join the movement, he gave them direct orders to perform acts of terrorism ... but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way.

> One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence

At least you acknowledge that words can lead to violence. If such violence occurs, we will certainly blame both the perpetrator and the person who incited them. But the most effective way of stopping such violence isn't catching perpetrators after the fact, it's preventing the incitement in the first place.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#90

Post by claudiawerner »

macinjosh wrote: post #10
umvi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem with freedom is that people abuse it and cause harm to others." Edit: (to be clear, I do not personally believe this, just offering a little insight as to how the "not insignificant majority" think)

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words are just words. One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way.

> Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Since this was even uttered by a judge, there's been a lot of discussion as to why this is neither absolute, nor nearly as clear cut, nor does it speak for everyone. Words hurt me (and they likely hurt you too), but the question is not only of hurt but actual harms. The idea that words categorically cannot be harms in themselves rests upon a foundation supported neither by materialist philosophy, nor by what we know of human biology[0].

>Words are just words

In a similar way, aren't actions just actions? Why stop at words? There is no fundamental metaphysical difference between expression and other actions.

[0] http://susanbrison.com/files/B.16.-speech_harm_and_the_mindb...

Post reply on HN