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

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

#131

Post by krapp » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 11:02 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #126

krapp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 hig…

>Like the allegations of Russian collusion?

Well no, I was think of Nazism, the Armenian genocide, the genocide in Myanmar (often attributed to Facebook), the treatment of Uyghurs in China, etc.

>>widespread disbelief in the legitimacy of modern science and medicine

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

Oh.. I see, you're making this a partisan thing, just taking jabs at the Democrats.

Sorry, I was hoping to have a serious conversation, moving on now.

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

#132

Post by abecedarius » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 11:02 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #59

zozbot234 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Free speech is] a fundamentally optimistic vision: Good ideas win. The better argument will prove persuasive. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Free speech is pessimistic as heck. It's saying that good ideas don't necessarily win, but if you allow authoritarians to engage in arbitrary censorship then bad ideas will always win. Censoring free speech is not just a "crude authoritarian's" move; it's what all authoritarians do whe…

Well, traditionally according to political philosophy, free speech is most associated with John Stuart Mill who did praise it out of optimism. That is the common understanding of it. I'm not sure what philosophical viewpoint you're referring to when you describe it as "pessimistic as heck". If you want to seriously engage with the issue, the article explores a lot of aspects of it, and why 100% unfettered free speech…

Mill promoted free speech realistically as better than the alternative, is how I'd put it. Here's where he made his case; it's not too long to read: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty/Chapter_2

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

#133

Post by betwixthewires » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 11:03 PM UTC

throwaway573925 wrote: post #34

The legal concept of "free speech" originally meant "speak truth to power". Highlight on truth and power . Now it's being co-opted to allow for propaganda, disinformation and even far-right apologists.

No. Not even a little. You cannot highlight your baseless premise and make it more true.

Free speech means and has always meant "to say whatever you want and for whatever reason."

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

#134

Post by krapp » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 11:07 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #118

krapp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? " You mean like freedom of religion and religious tolerance, including for atheism? A few centuries ago, effectively 100% of the population was religious and such beliefs were anathema. Should society have suppressed the spread and adoption of that "bad idea" and remained religion-bound instead of beco…

Is your argument that bad ideas don't exist, or that it's impossible to judge the merit of an idea?

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

#135

Post by amiantos » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 11:10 PM UTC

lilsoso wrote: post #46

zozbot234 wrote: post #33

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. And this is a good thing. The commanding heights of culture should be as contestable as possible; this is what makes for an open society.

The commenter you are quoting is praising free speech. Yes, it is a good thing. To belabor the point, what's ironic is that in the 1990s it was the right, 'the religious right', that wanted to censor free speech -- such as the speech of rap artists. Now it is the left that attacks free speech and wants to censor rap artists. Previously it was the church that wanted to censor free speech. Now it is progressives, who '…

You’re a bit off in characterizing the 90’s assault on free speech as something only the right did. Tipper Gore had quite the problem with Prince...

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

#136

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 11:11 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…

One thing that occurred to me while I listening to this article last night: I would not mind laws which restrict obvious and provable lies, in circumstances where the individual knew they were lying. You would need to adopt an extremely high standard for prosecution, similar to libel—no suing someone for being wrong, or having a strange belief, or saying something that's misleading but has a shred of truth.

But, I don't think it's good for society that I can create a fake website purporting to be a way to vote online, and send it to members of an opposing political party to suppress their vote. If I know that I'm lying, there should be laws against that.

If we don't do anything, our problems are going to get so much worse as deep fakes improve and doctored footage becomes indistinguishable from reality.

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

#137

Post by Tycho » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 11:13 PM UTC

kthejoker2 wrote: post #63

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 mo…

I don’t agree with your perspective about relevance. Details are an important part of journalism. You might not find some detail salient along some particular line of argument, but I still want to know.

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

#138

Post by betwixthewires » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 11:15 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…

> Similarly, about 200 ideas were proposed by the various states to be included in it, and Madison selected 10 from those ideas.

I don't know where you got this, but I wanted to let you know it is very much incorrect. The bill of rights was originally submitted to congress as 17 articles, passed by congress as 12 articles, 11 of which have been ratified by the states. 10 ratified in 1789 and one, the 27th amendment, in 1992.

As to whether 200 ideas were mulled over, I don't know, I'm sure a lot was discussed. There were a lot of sources for all of the ideas that went into the constitution, and British law at the time was probably the biggest influence.

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

#139

Post by asddubs » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 11:16 PM UTC

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…

i thought the point was that it's easy to pretend to be an absolutist, but I find a lot of free speech advocates turn a blind eye to censorship and deception when it's not explicitly political, but just for financial gain.

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

#140

Post by dkdk8283 » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 11:17 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #93

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…

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…

I support so called hate speech. This narrative is abused to censor and support extreme views which are just as damaging as their so called mission to quell so called extremists.