When the press asks for curbs on free speech we’re in trouble as a society.
The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
171–180 of 421 posts
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#172I 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 was particularly bizarre when Facebook anointed Snopes as an official fact checker, and then Snopes proceeded to "fact check" posts by the Babylon Bee as "fake news". (The Babylon Bee is a humor web site and clearly labeled as such.)
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#173It seems like the author is bending over backwards to advocate _some_ censorship over unfettered free speech.
Yet, I don't see free speech as being the issue here at all. The truth is that when a significant percentage of the population holds regressive views, they'll seek out and amplify people who pander to those views to the exclusion of all others.
This has gotten more irritating for the moderate mainstream with the advent of internet, but the root of the problem always is the presence of a core critical mass of the electorate that espouses those views.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#174I really hope people take this article seriously and not just knee jerk react to the idea that unobstructed free speech is totally perfect. The idea that there should be no consequences for spewing vitriol and using lies to back it up is insane. It's been demonstrated time and time again that people can't fact check every single statement and this fact is used by malicious actors to manipulate people to their ends. I…
How do you arbitrate truth? What if someone starts spreading the idea that gravity does not exist and that the reason you are stuck to the earth is that the ground is accelerating upward towards you at 9.8 m/s^2?
Who gets to decide whether lies or truth is being spread here? I don't think anyone is qualified to make that call.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#175Earlier 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…
I don't think Russia a functioning democracy and a state with a functioning rule of law to begin with so as an example it is a poor one. But Germany and France fare pretty good on this front.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The core issue is the underlying system that values engagement over all things ... the advertising system. I don't think you're digging deep enough here. It's not the business model. It's the technology. We've invented technology that can, to a significant degree, control people. It is as addictive as hard drugs and people will just keep coming back to their dealer for more and more digital crack. But it's worse th…
> I don't think you're digging deep enough here. It's not the business model. It's the technology. I don't think you're digging deep enough here. It's not the technology. It's the people. Meaning not just the people running companies, but all of us. Technology is a tool. Any tool can be used for nefarious purposes, or for beneficial purposes. Which kind it gets used for depends on the people who use it, and on the pe…
Go deep enough, and it all becomes meaningless.
Of course it is the people. People are flawed. Any Greek philosopher from 3,000 years ago could have told you so. There's no point complaining about it because you are not going to ban people anytime soon.
What we can do is to put soft and/or hard limits on what kind of behavior we are willing to tolerate in society. If a business model of providing "free" services and then subject your users to psychological manipulation for your own profit is harming us, then make that specific behavior illegal. That will deprive the abusers in industry from the ultimately amoral capital, personnel and technological resources, which will be liberated and redeployed to more constructive projects.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#177Society 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…
> Companies that make their money selling ads Which includes...the New York Times. And all other media companies. > This business model should be illegal. It's already trivially unethical. By this criterion, pretty much all newspapers that have ever existed should be illegal. Also pretty much all TV channels. If this is a problem, it's been a problem since long before Facebook and Twitter.
Yeah, there’s a terrible conflict of interest between informing the public and selling advertising. There has been for a long time. It’s just worse now. We should figure out how to fix it rather than throw up our hands.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#178I 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…
Can't I believe both things? I believe that Free Speech is one of the most important rights we have, but I also believe that people utilize their free speech to mislead and do harm.
While it would be nice to believe that "the solution is simple more free speech", and that the truth will win out in the end, is not fully backed up by the evidence. Lies can be carefully crafted to exploit the way human brains work, to mislead people into believing them... the truth is limited, because it has to be true.
So what do we do? I am not able to read the article, but it sounds like they are arguing for some limits on free speech. I share the concerns that people on here, like yourself, have about that. So what techniques can we use to stop misinformation that don't rely on limiting free speech? We can't just sit back and hope the truth will come through, we have too many examples in history to know that doesn't always happen.
If we just sit back and wait for the truth to win out, we might end up in a world where the people using free speech to mislead grab enough power to stop people from using the truth to fight their misinformation.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#179Earlier 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…
The fact is, people reading only the New York Times, HuffPo, CNN, etcetera, are completely engulfed in a disinformation environment. They're basically abuse victims.
As opposed to those who feast on the likes of Breitbart and Murdoch... pull the other one please.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#180Society 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…
> Companies that make their money selling ads Which includes...the New York Times. And all other media companies. > This business model should be illegal. It's already trivially unethical. By this criterion, pretty much all newspapers that have ever existed should be illegal. Also pretty much all TV channels. If this is a problem, it's been a problem since long before Facebook and Twitter.
I'd honestly have a hard time making a case that Fox News is less net bad for society than Facebook as of today. But Fox News feels like the "end-stage" version of whatever you'd call that particular flavor of classic corruption and human-brain-hijacking, whereas Facebook has been visibly improving its algorithmic behavior control abilities, has already invented new flavors of human-brain-hijacking, and seems to be getting better and better at making us worse every day.
We've learned how to handle the old style of human-brain-hijacking. Those lessons were written in blood and war. Facebook has few parallels, only distant rumblings of far worse lessons to be learned.