The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

I come from a country where a free speech was never really a thing, and I tell you, americans, this: you don't value it enough.

Restrictions on free speech inevitably lead to some form of censorship, and any form of censorship inevitably leads to the population being subjected to some 'official' version of 'truth'. This 'truth', however, is carefully curated to coerce the population to act in a certain way.

So when Twitter or Facebook start 'fact checking' posts, you shouldn't say 'Twitter is a private company, 1st amendment doesn't apply to it', you should grab pitchforks and put their censorship efforts to rest.

That's a fair response. I do get a bit excitable on this issue, because I consider the ability to express unpopular opinions to be one of the greatest sources of progress in history, from "what if the earth goes around the sun?" to "what if owning people is actually bad?" Yes, that means a lot of bad ideas are going to be out there, which is a price I firmly believe we should be willing to pay.

And I think the point stands that even benign-seeming regulations are going to be enforced by those in power, and are going to be particularly susceptible to selective application. For example, using hate speech or defamation laws to punish criticism of police officers: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/new-ha...

I think this argument proves too much. Clearly there is speech for which you support Twitter and Facebook suppression, and there is speech for which people here do not. We generally oppose any restraints that operate in the overt service of bigotry, and some of us don't oppose private restraints on unhinged conspiracy theories.

I also strongly object to the notion that liberals somehow own this, when clearly both sides of the spectrum instrumentalize speech and its suppression when it suits them.

Surely the same could be said for your argument though where you're taking it to an authoritarian extreme?

The opposite of free speech isn't regulated speech for everyone like a distopian future. It could be as simple as requirements for more transparency in certain types of speech like political ads and what qualifies as news versus opinion.

One of the major points of the article is that the spirit of free speech has been corrupted because it has allowed it to be coopted by political and corporate parties that can drown out the voices of the people with no trail back to who's presenting the version of reality to you.

We can regulate categories of media separately of individual rights. Many countries do this successfully without being authoritarian regimes

> 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!")

An unexpected take on my words.

What I actually did/said:

>> 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?

>> Or perhaps the author is saying this only with respect to history, and I'm getting all worked up about nothing.

If you look more closely, you may notice that I am very explicitly pointing out that I am speculating about what the author is getting at, rather than, as you (incorrectly) say I say:

- and then [claim it's (it is)] the author dog whistling

- 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 (this one is rather ironic)

> There's a strong reason the author didn't use the words "Trump" or "left".

Assertions like this are suggestive of mind reading ability, and also that political rhetoric that does not say things explicitly does not exist.

Something else I said:

>> 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.

This "how...are unpacked in the mind of the readers" is interesting, and I think might explain why near every single comment I make gets downvoted. I've always thought that it was people not liking my political views, but I think what it actually is, is that people aren't able to read text literally. As I was writing my message, I was "reading between the lines", with suspicion, looking for rhetoric - but I was doing this with full conscious intention, and my statements were explicitly speculative - I was wondering if the author was implying (which often does indeed happen) the things I sensed. If a logical, unbiased person (if there is such a person anymore) considers the article and writing techniques* - I could easily excerpt several examples) in it's entirety, my suspicion doesn't seem terribly inappropriate.

Your assessment (and I expect others) on the other hand, is that I have(!) read and said very specific things, that I haven't actually said/done. Not only did you not "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", you grossly misinterpreted it, and then asserted that misinterpretation as if it was a fact (because to you, it is just that).

Of course, there are very stressful times, the world is a complete gongshow, it's hard not to get at each others throats - "these things happen", so I'm not bent out of shape by it. Rather, I'm actually quite relieved, because I now feel quite a bit less confused and frustrated about the world around me, and how people within it behave.

Thanks for your insight.