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

121–130 of 421 posts

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

#121

Post by Wowfunhappy »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #107
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came into the article expecting to hate it, but the author eventually kind of won me over. She doesn't think Americans should abandon free speech, but she does think we should approach it more like Germany and France. > Germany and France have laws that are designed to prevent the widespread dissemination of hate speech and election-related disinformation. “Much of the recent authoritarian experience in Europe aros…

Guess what are two most frequent reason for site blocking and prosecution of dissidents in Russia? Articles 280 (Calls to extremism), 282 (actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, humiliation of human dignity). So you say on VK (one of russian social networks), "Corrupt mayor from the ruling party is a crook and must be prosecuted"... well, you are inciting hatred to the ruling party. With luck you'll get 2 years…

Yeah—if there's one misgiving I have with the article, it's that they never really address the question of "who makes the rules?" It sounds like one reason Germany and France have fewer problems is that everyone there is just... more responsible.

> Two days before [France's] national election, the Russians posted online thousands of emails from En Marche!, the party of Emmanuel Macron, who was running for president. France, like several other democracies, has a blackout law that bars news coverage of a campaign for the 24 hours before an election and on Election Day. But the emails were available several hours before the blackout began. They were fair game. Yet the French media did not cover them. Le Monde, a major French newspaper, explained that the hack had “the obvious purpose of undermining the integrity of the ballot.”

Can you imagine the American media completely ignoring a major leak because it had “the obvious purpose of undermining the integrity of the ballot"? I know I can't!

But also—that blackout law is an example of a measure that seems like utter common sense! Don't allow sudden bombshells to go off right before voting starts, when there isn't enough time to calm down and examine them reasonably. America should adopt something similar.

My overall takeaway from the article was that free speech can both protect and threaten democracies. Russia is certainly an example of what can go wrong when speech is restricted, but Hitler is an equally salient example of how misinformation can be used seize power. The harsh reality is that Democracy is extremely fragile, and faces threats from both sides!

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

#122

Post by rriepe »

paganel wrote: post #94
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…

> Good ideas win. The better argument will prove persuasive We don't value free speech because "good ideas win", there's nothing "optimistic" about it, we do know that bad ideas also win, sometimes on the back of/with the help with said free speech (history has showed us that), so tying the idea of free speech with its perceived usefulness/effectiveness is a fallacy, that's not the reason why we should value it. We s…

Where have bad ideas won under free speech?

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

#123

Post by Animats »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #81

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 T…

It's worth listening to the people from censorship-heavy countries. The US is better off for not having censorship. Free speech is messy. But it beats the alternative.

It's useful to read what the extremists have to say, if you read the extremists from both sides. You can still read Dabiq, ISIL's magazine, online. (That may have backfired. Their position was, it's a war to the death between our Islam and everybody else. The opposition agreed and crushed them.) It's worth reading what the gun rights people have to say. (Do not carry with a round in the chamber is good advice.) What the "defund the cops" people have to say. What the cop-rights people have to say. What QAnon has to say. What the "FEMA Death Train" people have to say. (Those big windowless railroad cars are car carriers. One believer followed one and put a video on Youtube, and was dismayed when it reached an unloading point and new cars came out.) What the "FEMA coffins" people were excited about. (That was a private storage yard for grave liners. Turned out FEMA doesn't stock coffins, just body bags, and not enough of them for the peak of the coronavirus epidemic.)

Within those extreme points you find the BLM people (who have had it with being shot and harassed), the white supremacists (who are mostly working-class guys who saw their way of life evaporate), the evangelicals (who right now are rudderless, having latched onto Trump, who represents their fears but not their values), and the Universal Basic Income people (that used to be called the "dole" in the UK). All have legitimate grievances. Within that perimeter lies reality. Those people are exploitable by politicians who don't have good solutions but can direct their anger.

That goes back a very long way. Read Shakespeare's version of Caesar's funeral oration.

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

#124

Post by cycloptic »

msla wrote: post #114
cycloptic wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find all the pearl-clutching on HN about "free speech" to be rather boring when these have always been heavily moderated platforms run by for-profit businesses that have always given special treatment to whatever advertisers were willing to pay the most. Nobody bats an eye when they're the ones profiting off of it. I'm sorry if that's dismissive but it's extremely frustrating hearing these kinds of things in the co…

> I find all the pearl-clutching on HN about "free speech" to be rather boring when these have always been heavily moderated platforms run by for-profit businesses that have always given special treatment to whatever advertisers were willing to pay the most. Nobody bats an eye when they're the ones profiting off of it. "You say you're in favor of free speech, yet when I run into your house screaming obscenities you t…

That's what I'm saying, it's irrelevant.

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

#125

Post by Animats »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #113
l33tbro wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artists in the soviet era had to employ all kinds of allegories and humor to communicate their experience without being reprimanded by KGB censors. I'll take free speech over assigning any group the power to arbitrate what is considered "disinformation".

Exactly. So every time I see news of twitter/fb 'fact-checking', it reeks to me with a far too familiar KGB / STASI odor. Going down this path will not end well.

Good point. Although, arguably, "fact checking" is merely replying to what others are saying. It's a "the solution to free speech is more speech" approach.

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

#126

Post by orangecat »

krapp wrote: post #99
orangecat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. This is an easy out, as it assumes bad ideas are just "out there" like a noble gas, not interacting with anything around them. But speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, it always has consequences, and very often exists explicitly to enact change or call to action. Do you believe the effect of the…

Do you believe the effect of the spread and adoption of bad ideas is a price we should always be willing to pay?

I would say that we should "always" allow bad ideas in the same sense that we should "always" avoid torture. In the sense that you can construct hypotheticals where not doing so would lead to catastrophic results, but it's necessary to have a very strong presumption in favor because anything else has a high likelihood of abuse.

a political party spreading lies and conspiracy theories

Like the allegations of Russian collusion?

widespread disbelief in the legitimacy of modern science and medicine

Like Kamala Harris saying not to take a vaccine if Trump recommends it?

all regulations and laws can be abused

Yes, and I would claim that this is even more of a problem for laws about speech, because they're inherently highly subjective. According to some, citing FBI crime statistics can be "hate speech".

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

#127

Post by Wowfunhappy »

throwaway13337 wrote: post #95

Society is misdiagnosing the issue here. It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. As long as media companies get the most benefit from people engaging with content, they will continue to promote information that is damaging to society. It may even be true information but when the goal is engagement, it's purpose will be to enrage…

Netflix doesn't sell ads (and doesn't rely on user-generated content, so they can't really threaten democracy), but if you read interviews with executives, they also seem to be optimizing for maximum time spent on the service.

Apple, too, reportedly told developers it's increasingly looking for Apple Arcade games that will "keep users hooked" over a long period. [1]

Consequently, I'm not convinced removing ad-supported media will fix the problem of companies optimizing for engagement at all costs. Humans are stupid, and so we're more willing to pay for services where we spend lots of time, irrespective of the quality of that time.

---

1: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/30/apple-arcade-game-strat...

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

#128

Post by betwixthewires »

ironman1478 wrote: post #91
humanrebar wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that there should be no consequences for spewing vitriol and using lies to back it up is insane. Is that what we have? Michael Richards seems to have seen consequences for vitriol. Tom Brokaw literally lost money due to broadcasting gross speculation. Maybe those sorts of things should be more common?

Sure, those are examples, however what about people like rush limbaugh? Michael richards should be in trouble for what he did and he suffered the consequences, but somebody like rush limbaugh has an active listener base where he essentially lies about every group under the sun and there are no consequences. Here is his Wikipedia page which lists all his views, many of which are just abhorrent and factually incorrect…

I've seen some names you've named, and I don't like or follow those individuals, but I assume you don't like what they have to say.

So as a thought experiment, ask yourself, is there anyone you like and follow that you believe is feeding you misinformation? Or are you the only person that is not basing your worldview on misleading information (or, maybe not alone, but others very much like you)?

If the answer is no (and how could it be otherwise) then you start to see the problem: where is the practical distinction between people spreading misinformation and people simply disagreeing with you? In every disagreement over fact, one person is wrong. One person is basing their view on some flawed premise or information. How is banning misinformation any different, tangibly, than banning dissent?

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

#129

Post by tshaddox »

throwaway13337 wrote: post #95

Society is misdiagnosing the issue here. It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. As long as media companies get the most benefit from people engaging with content, they will continue to promote information that is damaging to society. It may even be true information but when the goal is engagement, it's purpose will be to enrage…

I agree with your diagnosis, but perhaps not your treatment plan. You seem to think that making the social networks’ business model illegal would not be a violation of free speech, but that the social networks limiting distribution of misinformation would be a violation of free speech. Am I interpreting you correctly?

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

#130

Post by betwixthewires »

srean wrote: post #23

A problem is the inherent asymmetry in the ease with which one can create a believable lie and the difficulty of ensuring that its refutation reaches everywhere the lie has reached. You can easily tie up the fact checkers and refuters with what amounts to a denial of service attack. Should one curtail free speech ? My opinion is no, but one needs to realize what we sign up for when we do that.

What we sign up for is the burden and responsibility to educate ourselves and thoroughly, skeptically vet information ourselves. Interestingly, we have this burden anyway regardless, and censoring information only increases that burden and makes it more difficult to verify information.
Post reply on HN