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

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

#191

Post by csours » Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 12:19 AM UTC

The promise of the internet and social media was that it would broaden people's horizons. That has certainly failed so far, but I wonder if it is at all possible to create a social media platform that drives genuine, deep interaction.

I think it would have to be based on curated, pseudo-anonymous conversations with some strong ground rules.

Information is cheap. As recently as 20 years ago, the best source of general knowledge was a set of encyclopedias, at home if you could afford it, or at a library if you could not. Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it is generally as good as encyclopedias were, and far more broad. You could tell a similar story about the news, and many other things.

What does it mean when information is cheap? I'm not an expert, but I think it means that propaganda is cheap too. I wish people were better able to recognize propaganda and brain washing.

The truth does not battle falsehoods with facts, but with emotions. Hate, anger, fear, and distrust are used to prepare the soil for the seeds of propaganda.

It seems like the brain is hardwired to find 'interesting' things, like counterfactuals. Conspiracy theories are the ultimate counterfactual. I admit that I find conspiracy theories to be interesting as well; but I use them to inform my opinion about motivation, not facts.

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

#192

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 12:21 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #189

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

There's nothing responsible about concealing relevant information from voters.

If it's relevant, sure! But I don't consider lies spread by a hostile foreign government to advance its own interests to be relevant information.

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

#193

Post by specialist » Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 12:22 AM UTC

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…

"... unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement."

Correct.

The Freedom Speeches™ food fight is just a useful distraction, to head off any structural reforms.

Similarly, all the pearl clutching over fact checking and truthiness and bias is completely misguided, serving to crowd out useful technical reforms.

Actual journalism (reporting) is very simple:

  - Share your data.
  - Cite your sources.
  - Sign your work.

Any medium claiming to be "news" must have built-in support.

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

#194

Post by Animats » Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #163

Animats wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "fact checking" is merely replying to what others are saying. Not if "fact checking" actually means "taking down the post because we disagreed with it".

Right. It should be attaching a fact-based reply.

This is not too hard, because the number of different bogus memes seen in bulk is not that large.

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

#195

Post by zapita » Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #190

zapita wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that TV shows and video games are clearly entertainment, so you know what to expect. It’s possible for a fictional TV show or video game to manipulate you, but it’s harder because you know what you’re experiencing isn’t real. Social media is more dangerous because it can warp your perception of reality: what is happening in the world, what people think and care about in your neighborhood and your co…

I agree. The question is, if Facebook relied on paid subscriptions instead of ads, would they have designed their algorithm differently? I think they'd still optimize for engagement / time spent on site.

Sure but they would not be infested with conspiracy theories and fake accounts because those would be worthless.

So instead of our parents being lobotomized by QAnon, they would still be inviting us to their Zynga farm game so they can unlock the pumpkin patch extension. Still scammy but less destructive to democratic institutions and free will as we know it.

The ad business model is not just about selling engagement, it’s about creating an ecosystem enabling the worst players to make the most money, while the platforms at the center keep their hands clean. Google started this tradition with malware search bars and shady affiliates; Facebook and Youtube just took it to the next level. None of that shit is profitable with subscriptions.

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

#196

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 12:26 AM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #192

nradov wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing responsible about concealing relevant information from voters.

If it's relevant, sure! But I don't consider lies spread by a hostile foreign government to advance its own interests to be relevant information.

If country's own citizens do the voting, I'm personally fine with anyone influencing them. If we postulate that people are responsible and reasonable enough to have a say in the elections, it is an insult to assume that they are some weak-minded fools who can be easily swayed by a hostile foreign government.

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

#197

Post by chroem- » Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 12:26 AM UTC

There are not a lot of causes that I'm willing to die for, but freedom of speech is one of them. It is the most fundamental human right from which all other human rights are derived. The moment you lose your absolute right to question authority is the moment you lose the ability to protect your other rights.

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

#198

Post by josquindesprez » Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 12:27 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #181

josquindesprez wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the same word games that got us tired arguments like "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Looking only at people as individuals limits you to seeing first-order effects. The insidious effects of social media come about because large scale algorithmic optimization has found high leverage points for influencing society. While that's ultimately a consequence of individual people, you can't solve many…

> Looking only at people as individuals limits you to seeing first-order effects. Where did I say "looking only at people as individuals"? My point was precisely the opposite: that people are not just individuals, that an individual person's failure to exercise common sense and critical thinking skills, making them susceptible to manipulation, when aggregated over a large enough segment of society, has higher order e…

> In a free society, you penalize the people who can't act like responsible adults, not the people who can.

If the ills of social media are, as you say, (and I also believe), caused by the higher-order effects of many individuals "failing to exercise common sense and critical thinking," then who are we to punish?

A phenomenon like QAnon might have been started by a single nefarious person, and amplified by a small group of misinformation lovers, but it's only because of social media's leverage that millions of people have had their moral framework and way of interacting with the world corrupted so heavily.

Punishing the irresponsible was a reasonable solution for all of history where the irresponsible had a reasonable amount of societal leverage. We're no longer there.

Perhaps banning social media isn't the way. But focusing on the humans that find leverage points in the system to amplify bad messages also doesn't solve the fact that the system is designed to maximize ordinary people's ability to create self-sustaining societal doom loops.

Banning guns might be overreach. But banning something that's the functional equivalent of distributing assault rifles to millions of toddlers seems like a necessity in a free society.

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

#199

Post by UncleEntity » Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

kneel wrote: post #17

taxicab wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the point clearly went over your head or you just decided to give that snotty reply to a strawman you came up with: parent was saying good ideas don't win if demagogues can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas in the same way that, say, the ISP industry can hold broadly anti-consumer policies that customers don't do anything about because it is locally not a free market. To expand it further, I would arg…

No one cared about free speech until Trump was elected. Propaganda isn't anything new, it's used by demagogues to blame society's woes on [insert scapegoat here] Rather than address society's woes (there are so many in the US) We're just told it's somehow different this time, because it's digital. This just doesn't hold up when you see that this story has played out many times in the past, it's predictable to anyone…

I'd argue that no one cared about restricting free speech until Trump was elected -- unless that's what you meant.

Just as no one really cared about political demonstrations until they turned violent. Not like Kent State violence but roving 'blocks' overturning cars and lighting things on fire.

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

#200

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

zapita wrote: post #195

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The question is, if Facebook relied on paid subscriptions instead of ads, would they have designed their algorithm differently? I think they'd still optimize for engagement / time spent on site.

Sure but they would not be infested with conspiracy theories and fake accounts because those would be worthless. So instead of our parents being lobotomized by QAnon, they would still be inviting us to their Zynga farm game so they can unlock the pumpkin patch extension. Still scammy but less destructive to democratic institutions and free will as we know it. The ad business model is not just about selling engagement…

> Sure but they would not be infested with conspiracy theories and fake accounts because those would be worthless.

Why? How are those conspiracy theories connected to advertising?

They're not worthless insofar as they cause users to spend more time on Facebook. And Facebook would want to optimize for time spent on their site regardless of whether it was to keep users paying or to show them more ads.