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

201–210 of 421 posts

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

#201

Post by amadeuspagel »

jacquesm wrote: post #182
abecedarius wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But he lived well before the age of the internet and maybe, you know, just maybe when the world changes we should adapt to it rather than to dogmatically hold that what one person thought a couple of hundred years ago should be enshrined and never ever be changed lest the sky falls down.

Maybe, you know, just maybe we can learn something from people writing on timeless issues, even if they wrote before the lastest technological change.

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

#202

Post by Wowfunhappy »

krapp wrote: post #145
easterncalculus wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany and France don't have free speech. If there's speech that you receive legal action for then it isn't free.

Well... then free speech doesn't exist anywhere, because notwithstanding laws against libel, slander, false advertising, perjury etc, there's really no place in the world which doesn't have some form of societal taboos, standards of politeness and courtesy, or notions of acceptable behavior which will lead to consequences if transgressed. Edit: I see you changed "If there's speech that you receive consequences for th…

(I don't actually think the GP's edit changed your argument at all. Libel, slander, false advertising, and purjury all come with legal consequences.)

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

#203

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

Animats wrote: post #194
pdonis wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

But who will fact-check the fact-checkers? Also, who will ensure that fact-checking rules are consistently applied to everyone?

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

#204

Post by Hammershaft »

jseliger wrote: post #164
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…

It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. Try teaching non-elite undergrads sometime, and particularly assignments that require some sense of epistemology, and you'll discover that the vast majority of people have pretty poor personal epistemic hygiene—it's not much required in most people, most of the time, in most jobs. We evolv…

Are undergrads from elite universities any different from your experience?

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

#205

Post by mths »

pdonis wrote: post #154
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…

> 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.

Not to speak for GP, but I think what he's getting at is that the application of AI in this business model in order to drive engagement (for the purpose of selling ads) should be illegal. Or more generally, we need regulation around AI.

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

#206

Post by roenxi »

krapp wrote: post #106
roenxi wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Looking back at the rise of fascism and the Holocaust in her 1951 book... She learned the wrong lessons from her study of the rise of fascism. The correct lesson is 'if you botch the economy badly enough, voters will explore every option to try and get some relief'. Including voting in Nazis. The Nazis (with a parallel to Trump) are a sign of some large group feeling profound economic distress and being rather unha…

>Free speech is by far the most reliable way of identifying bad ideas as bad. ... but you just spent an entire paragraph arguing that it's impossible for any person to distinguish between good and bad in the marketplace of ideas, and that all attempts inevitably do more harm than good. How then would it be possible to identify bad ideas given freedom of speech? Surely any attempt to do so would suffer the same bad co…

There is a spectrum of reliability. A panel of experts deciding on truth or fakeness of news is on the bad end of the spectrum, everyone figuring out what they think is most likely true is further towards the good end of the spectrum.

But nowhere on the spectrum is good enough to uncritically trust news you read on the internet. That can't be achieved. There is a choice of misinformation - either that approved by an eventally corrupt panel of experts, or those approved by the opinions of People of Average Intelligence, or that approved by people you personally like.

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

#207

Post by zapita »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #200
zapita wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Conspiracy theories emerge from the complicated and low-quality ecosystem that is required to monetize free content with ads. If people pay you a subscription, you don’t need to incentivize scammers to produce content that enrages people so they can see a viagra ad. Instead you can do what Apple and Netflix do: pay content creators for quality content, and compete on quality.

Is there a market for $5/month all-you-can-eat documentaries about lizards who secretly run the world and lay their eggs in vaccines? Sure, but it won’t be a $300B company capable of destabilizing entire countries.

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

#208

Post by mdale »

cortesoft wrote: post #178
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…

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 m…

I think this sums up our predicament: "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."

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

#209

Post by kofejnik »

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…

highly relevant fiction (fiction?): https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/

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

#210

Post by Barrin92 »

easterncalculus wrote: post #142
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…

Germany and France don't have free speech. If there's speech that you receive legal action for then it isn't free.

Weird because I'm German and I wasn't aware that I'm living in North Korea. Did the US patent the definition of free speech or something?

I don't even know how people can say this stuff with a straight face. It's like saying "the US does not have healthcare" because of policy differences.

Post reply on HN