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

The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 421 posts

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#11

Post by taxicab »

ColanR wrote: post #4
crazygringo wrote: post #2

Given how much the issue of free speech comes up here on HN -- especially regarding Twitter, Facebook, and politics -- I think this is a really important article for people to read. It's long, but is extremely nuanced and shows that the issue is far more complex than just "the solution to offensive speech is more speech". One key takeaway is in the middle: > [Free speech is] a fundamentally optimistic vision: Good id…

I wonder if the argument you've highlighted is a good idea, or a particularly dangerous one. Maybe we should discuss it and find out. Or maybe we should call what you're saying 'propaganda' and ban it outright, since it might call for 'radical' and 'potentially destabilizing' 'changes to our democracy'. It would be too bad if you could only present it as an opinion, in limited arenas far away from anyone who might di…

Since the point clearly went over your head or you just decided to give that snotty reply to a strawman you came up with: parent was saying good ideas don't win if demagogues can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas in the same way that, say, the ISP industry can hold broadly anti-consumer policies that customers don't do anything about because it is locally not a free market.

To expand it further, I would argue stuff like Twitter and Facebook that optimize for engagement are already not free speech since they are designed for only the most outrageous (and likely false) content to flourish.

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#12

Post by katbyte »

krapp wrote: post #10
greenduck wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is our view of free speech different today, but the US has a long history of censoring minority groups. Take the Hays code for instance which made it de facto against the law for movies to portray gay men in a positive way or "race mixing" at all. That was around until nearly the 70s. That's still within living memory [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Co...

What does "de facto against the law" even mean? The Hays code was an industry-imposed form of censorship, there were no actual consequences, legal or otherwise, to ignoring it.

Might of well be against the law as the entire industry enforced out

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#13

Post by dagmx »

zepto wrote: post #6
dagmx wrote: post #3

This is a pretty good read and fairly nuanced. IMHO free speech needs accountability and massive increases in education resources to be effective. Without accountability, the loudest voices can set what is true to many. This congregates power into the already powerful, until new means of information dissemination are created to allow new voices. However those too will need the same accountability or will fall to the…

Can you say more about what ‘accountability’ means in this case?

Accountability could take many forms:

* Having to delineate between news and opinion more clearly. Fox news is a high profile example, but many news sources do this. The inter mixing of news and opinion without clearly defining what is opinion, leads to the spread of opinion as truth.

* encouraging social media sites to require political ads be transparent of who funds them and make it clear to a viewer.

* require political ads to provide sources for their claims.

* Bring back some form of the fairness doctrine to prevent hyper partisan news.

Accountability to me means, there should be transparency to the consumer of news of where the content is coming from, differentiating news and opinion ,and providing them with the direct means to learn more.

A large part of the article is about how there's no easy paper trail for the lay person to verify their source.

I would like to take the emotion and deceit out of politics and news. Free speech is great, but it hasn't scaled well with the unfettered ability for deceit to be part of it. There should be solutions to provide more free speech while allowing people to curtail the inherent deceit that it also allows, by arming them with the mental tools to do so.

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#14

Post by tedunangst »

krapp wrote: post #10
greenduck wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is our view of free speech different today, but the US has a long history of censoring minority groups. Take the Hays code for instance which made it de facto against the law for movies to portray gay men in a positive way or "race mixing" at all. That was around until nearly the 70s. That's still within living memory [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Co...

What does "de facto against the law" even mean? The Hays code was an industry-imposed form of censorship, there were no actual consequences, legal or otherwise, to ignoring it.

The Hays code (and MPAA ratings, etc.) was a preemptive effort to avoid congressionally imposed rules. If they hadn't followed the "de facto law", there would have been a real law.

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#16

Post by bitdizzy »

ColanR wrote: post #4
crazygringo wrote: post #2

Given how much the issue of free speech comes up here on HN -- especially regarding Twitter, Facebook, and politics -- I think this is a really important article for people to read. It's long, but is extremely nuanced and shows that the issue is far more complex than just "the solution to offensive speech is more speech". One key takeaway is in the middle: > [Free speech is] a fundamentally optimistic vision: Good id…

I wonder if the argument you've highlighted is a good idea, or a particularly dangerous one. Maybe we should discuss it and find out. Or maybe we should call what you're saying 'propaganda' and ban it outright, since it might call for 'radical' and 'potentially destabilizing' 'changes to our democracy'. It would be too bad if you could only present it as an opinion, in limited arenas far away from anyone who might di…

I had to read your post and the GP post multiple times and I'm still confused. It doesn't seem like you're talking at all to what they said but are stating a very well worn argument for free speech, that is, if some speech is to be curtailed, then all speech is under threat of being curtailed.

But the GP was precisely talking about how even though many would say "we have freedom of speech", what that actually means in practice falls far short of the mark. We "have freedom of speech" in the sense that many people hold the ideology. But holding an ideology is very different from having that ideology realized.

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#17

Post by kneel »

taxicab wrote: post #11
ColanR wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the argument you've highlighted is a good idea, or a particularly dangerous one. Maybe we should discuss it and find out. Or maybe we should call what you're saying 'propaganda' and ban it outright, since it might call for 'radical' and 'potentially destabilizing' 'changes to our democracy'. It would be too bad if you could only present it as an opinion, in limited arenas far away from anyone who might di…

Since the point clearly went over your head or you just decided to give that snotty reply to a strawman you came up with: parent was saying good ideas don't win if demagogues can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas in the same way that, say, the ISP industry can hold broadly anti-consumer policies that customers don't do anything about because it is locally not a free market. To expand it further, I would arg…

No one cared about free speech until Trump was elected. Propaganda isn't anything new, it's used by demagogues to blame society's woes on [insert scapegoat here]

Rather than address society's woes (there are so many in the US) We're just told it's somehow different this time, because it's digital. This just doesn't hold up when you see that this story has played out many times in the past, it's predictable to anyone paying attention.

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#18

Post by rayiner »

> In the 2010 Citizens United decision, the court’s conservative majority opened the door to allowing corporations (and unions) to spend unlimited amounts on political advocacy, as long as they donated to interest groups and political-action committees rather than to campaigns.

Unsurprising to see Emily Bazelon deeply distort Citizens United. That case wasn’t about “unlimited money.” The entity that was prosecuted was a small 501(c)(4) non-profit (the same category as the NAACP or ACLU), who made a movie critical of Hilary Clinton too close to the election. The government’s lawyer admitted, that under the government’s theory of the first amendment, nothing would preclude the government from prosecuting a corporation that spent corporate treasury money to publish a book: https://www.ifs.org/blog/citizens-united-its-all-about-the-b....

In fact, had Citizens United gone the other way, the Trump administration would be able to tell Google and Twitter they can’t use corporate funds to moderate political content. There is a reason the ACLU was in the conservative side in that case.

That the media has for a decade created a Twilight-Zone reality to make the public believe that Citizens United was about money and not a political movie should call into question the article’s whole premise. Do you really trust these gatekeepers of “the Truth” to yield the government’s power to police speech?

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#19

Post by greenduck »

krapp wrote: post #10
greenduck wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is our view of free speech different today, but the US has a long history of censoring minority groups. Take the Hays code for instance which made it de facto against the law for movies to portray gay men in a positive way or "race mixing" at all. That was around until nearly the 70s. That's still within living memory [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Co...

What does "de facto against the law" even mean? The Hays code was an industry-imposed form of censorship, there were no actual consequences, legal or otherwise, to ignoring it.

Expanding on what katbyte said, the Hays code was adopted by every major studio in the US to replace state run censors. They did this because of the same battle going on right now in social media: "if we self regulate, then we won't need government regulation placed on us." When an entire industry agrees to follow the code and has enforcement options available and does it with the threat of government action if they don't follow it, the only difference between it and a real law are the name. The consequences to ignoring it were that your funding was dropped, the offending scenes were removed from the film, or you were kicked out and blacklisted from the industry. They were apparently pretty strict about it. You can tell that by how stringently it was followed for decades.

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#20

Post by orangecat »

dagmx wrote: post #3

This is a pretty good read and fairly nuanced. IMHO free speech needs accountability and massive increases in education resources to be effective. Without accountability, the loudest voices can set what is true to many. This congregates power into the already powerful, until new means of information dissemination are created to allow new voices. However those too will need the same accountability or will fall to the…

This congregates power into the already powerful

As opposed to throwing people in prison for expressing incorrect views? Who do you think will be in charge of that process? Hint: not the powerless.

Post reply on HN