The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by kthejoker2 » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 6:52 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #8

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…

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but I wonder if the author is suggesting ("dog whistling") that in our (US) current two party system, that only one side is guilty of it? (I guess my question is actually: I wonder how paragraphs like this are unpacked in the minds of readers, depending on their particular worldviews. Written English is so brutally flawed as a communication medium). Or maybe this is the nuance but I'…

Because you interpreted the neutral words of the article as left and right? It doesn't say what political views the crude authoritarian has.

You injected that in, and then claim it's the author dog whistling. (By the way, this is actually, literally "begging the question" - "It must be a dog whistle because I read it this way even though it doesn't use those words or make that claim at all!")

That's why you're being downvoted. There's a strong reason the author didn't use the words "Trump" or "left".

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

#62

Post by didibus » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

dagmx wrote: post #13

zepto wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

Those are good starts. I'd add that one of the biggest problem with free speech currently is that we allow actors to speak and publish content that we don't even know are real Citizen of the US. And we allow people to speak and publish content at scales that are unprecedented.

I think this is a big issue that somehow people don't talk about as much. It isn't free speech that's so much being attacked, more so we are trying to define the framework of free speech on the internet.

There is one perspective that could say the internet is like anything else, and so free speech applies the same. Except the internet isn't like anything else. It hides people behind anonymity, it allows actors that arn't american or even real to present themselves as if they were and speak to US affairs. It makes it trivial to decimate false claims to a greater audience at almost no cost. And the platforms of information built around it have designed automated systems to burry high quality discourse and instead promote sensational headlines.

To me, this is similar to problems of spam, phishing, fraud and abuse that say Amazon faces on its store front, like counterfeit, fake reviews, bot accounts, money laundering, etc. Democracy on the internet faces similar problems of fraud and abuse. And just like Amazon needs a framework to mitigate those fraud and abuses, our democracy needs it as well.

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

#63

Post by kthejoker2 » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #48

Why do we need the term “disinformation?” Deeply suspicious of this word. Seems to let politicians ignore allegations without having to declare them as false.

It also includes things which are technically true but lack context, or aren't relevant to the policies or decisions we want.

"George Floyd was a drug using criminal" is true, and therefore becomes a talking point in conservative circles to justify the police brutality he suffered, even though it's irrelevant to why others are upset at his treatment.

I think it's a more useful framework because half truths are way more dangerous than outright lies.

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

#64

Post by defen » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #56

defen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wikipedia summary ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC ) is pretty good. The government can't prohibit anyone (people, corporations, unions, etc) from making political speech, so long as it's not directed by the candidate. So I can't donate a billion dollars to a candidate's campaign, but I can run a billion dollars of ads supporting him (or against his opponent), so long as I don't receive dire…

That wasn’t the “outcome” of Citizens United. The outcome was that the government can’t punish a small non-profit from making a movie critical of a candidate within 90 days of an election. You can read whatever you want into the implications of the rule articulated in the case. Folks on the other side can say that, if the decision had gone the other way, nothing would stop the government from regulating how the New Y…

Maybe outcome is not the right word then...but I was trying to capture the concept of downstream consequences. In the same way that you could say that an "outcome" (or whatever word is better) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is that employers cannot fire workers for being gay or transgender, even though those intentions weren't even on the radar when the law was written. On the third hand, it seems wrong to call Citizens United an "outcome" when it's more like a clarification of an existing right, as opposed to the granting of a new one.

I also don't disagree with the court's ruling, I was just trying to phrase my response in as neutral a way as possible.

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

#65

Post by acituan » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #57

015UUZn8aEvW wrote: post #26

It's ironic that Emily Bazelon, the author of this essay, is the granddaughter of the late influential federal judge David Bazelon. Judge Bazelon was a well-known progressive and a well-known free speech proponent. Although his granddaughter shares his broadly progressive worldview, her position on this issue is different. The evolution from David to Emily reflects that of the US left as a whole. Most people like to…

> In practice, it is a tool for those who don't occupy the commanding heights of a culture to push back against those who do. But isn't the article arguing the exact opposite? It warns that those in power now use the shield of "free speech" to push propaganda and lies in order to undermine truth and democracy and thereby attempt to preserve power. Which is not something anyone saw coming, and which deserves to be tre…

> It warns that those in power now use the shield of "free speech" to push propaganda and lies in order to undermine truth and democracy and thereby attempt to preserve power.

Except with new media no one can really push information, it is mostly up to the recommendation algorithms to propagate the messages, which is optimized for creating more engagement and ad dollars. This, singlehandedly damages more of democratic processes, which depend on healthy discourse, than any questionable content put into it.

> now use the shield of "free speech" to push propaganda and lies in order to undermine truth

Is there a form of free speech, contents of which you disagree that doesn’t push propaganda or undermine some definition of your truth? In other words, in this version of narrative warfare, every opponent narrative is already “propaganda”, every disagreement is “destroying democracy”.

Except truth is hardly an out there objectivity to which propgandic words magically render our eyes blind. It is a process of dialectic; disagreements that can be integrated together and form a more comprehensive picture of our musings in an infinite problem space.

It is the false sense of certainty, including utopian ideas of its attainability with likes of “fact checks” and judicious restriction of speech that destroy this process, and with it any hope of integrating opposing worldviews without wanting to hurt those who hold them.

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

#66

Post by amadeuspagel » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #57

015UUZn8aEvW wrote: post #26

It's ironic that Emily Bazelon, the author of this essay, is the granddaughter of the late influential federal judge David Bazelon. Judge Bazelon was a well-known progressive and a well-known free speech proponent. Although his granddaughter shares his broadly progressive worldview, her position on this issue is different. The evolution from David to Emily reflects that of the US left as a whole. Most people like to…

> In practice, it is a tool for those who don't occupy the commanding heights of a culture to push back against those who do. But isn't the article arguing the exact opposite? It warns that those in power now use the shield of "free speech" to push propaganda and lies in order to undermine truth and democracy and thereby attempt to preserve power. Which is not something anyone saw coming, and which deserves to be tre…

I don't know what to make of the idea of the powerless censoring the powerful to protect truth and democracy. If you can censor your opponents, you are per definition powerful. If you are worried about your opponents use of the "shield of free speech" to protect themselves from you, you are worried about limits on your power.

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

#67

Post by defen » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

didibus wrote: post #52

defen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Somewhere along the way, the conservative majority has lost sight of an essential point: The purpose of free speech is to further democratic participation. Is that actually true? It seems critical to her argument, but this statement was presented without much evidence (just a quote from a law professor) - but is that actually the purpose of the first amendment?

Apparently the ideas in the first amendment were influenced by the enlightenment thinkers philosophies from Europe such as John Locke and Cesare Beccaria. It's said that Thomas Jefferson influenced James Madison heavily as well in having him come up with the bill of rights. So already you can read up on those people and their phylosophies to get a better idea of the concepts behind freedom of speech. Similarly, about…

What I find interesting about that is that it's presented as an originalist argument, by a presumably progressive writer, against the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Usually it's the other way around, and conservatives are amenable to originalist arguments.

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

#68

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

acituan wrote: post #65

crazygringo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice, it is a tool for those who don't occupy the commanding heights of a culture to push back against those who do. But isn't the article arguing the exact opposite? It warns that those in power now use the shield of "free speech" to push propaganda and lies in order to undermine truth and democracy and thereby attempt to preserve power. Which is not something anyone saw coming, and which deserves to be tre…

> It warns that those in power now use the shield of "free speech" to push propaganda and lies in order to undermine truth and democracy and thereby attempt to preserve power. Except with new media no one can really push information, it is mostly up to the recommendation algorithms to propagate the messages, which is optimized for creating more engagement and ad dollars. This, singlehandedly damages more of democrati…

[deleted]

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

#69

Post by UncleOxidant » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

acituan wrote: post #65

crazygringo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice, it is a tool for those who don't occupy the commanding heights of a culture to push back against those who do. But isn't the article arguing the exact opposite? It warns that those in power now use the shield of "free speech" to push propaganda and lies in order to undermine truth and democracy and thereby attempt to preserve power. Which is not something anyone saw coming, and which deserves to be tre…

> It warns that those in power now use the shield of "free speech" to push propaganda and lies in order to undermine truth and democracy and thereby attempt to preserve power. Except with new media no one can really push information, it is mostly up to the recommendation algorithms to propagate the messages, which is optimized for creating more engagement and ad dollars. This, singlehandedly damages more of democrati…

> Except truth is hardly an out there objectivity

Except truth by definition is objective. Opinions and beliefs are subjective. The earth is spherically shaped - this is not a subjective opinion, it is objective truth.

> including utopian ideas of its attainability with likes of “fact checks”

Aren't "fact checks" part of the free discussion? If a leader is spewing lots of falsehoods then it's up to the 4th estate to fact check him/her.

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

#70

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]