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

211–220 of 421 posts

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

#211

Post by Barrin92 »

Zpalmtree wrote: post #155
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…

We promise, we're only going to ban """"hate speech""""! Oh wait, who decides what "hate speech" is?

the law, the courts, parliament, civic institutions, the same people who define what assault, libel or the speed limit is.

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

#212

Post by msla »

asddubs wrote: post #139
msla wrote: post #114

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. "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.

And my point is that commercial censorship can be circumvented by going to a competitor, whereas political censorship can only be circumvented by becoming a political refugee. We need to stop monopolies, but that isn't much to do with free speech law, is it?

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

#213

Post by Igelau »

mths wrote: post #205
pdonis wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is the Alignment Problem Lite. Instead of an AGI sending the harvester drones to turn us all into paperclips, we have ML harvesting our sanity for clicks and views.

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

#214

Post by shadowgovt »

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.

The key difference being that if an individual disagrees with Twitter or FB's fact-checking, they can respond by ceasing to feed the beast.

Moving out of a controlling government is much harder than ceasing to go to facebook.com or twitter.com.

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

#215

Post by jturpin »

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…

I agree. You can extend this idea to the idea of freedom of religion - the goal isn't to have some Free Market of religion where the "good ones" win and the bad ones die off, it's just a fundamental human right. Same as speech.

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

#216

Post by shadowgovt »

nradov wrote: post #172
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 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.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Babylon_Bee

Not clearly enough. Multiple people (including the President) have been tripped up by Bee "news."

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

#217

Post by shadowgovt »

monoideism wrote: post #141
Animats wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 el…

> Universal Basic Income people (that used to be called the "dole" in the UK) I'm much more ambivalent than I used to be about UBI, after seeing what large groups of sequestered, out-of-work, bored, and angry people are capable of doing, but just to clarify, UBI is not the same as the dole. The dole is only given to people who are unemployed, whereas UBI is given to everyone.

Probably worth keeping in mind that what you're seeing is sequestered, out-of-work, bored, angry people who still have to make ends meet in a hyper-capitalist society without some kind of guaranteed income.

In general, it's not people with time on their hands who pick up a brick and huck it through a store window; if it were, you'd see more millionaire looters. It's people who don't have anything to lose.

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

#218

Post by petermcneeley »

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…

I think some concrete examples would be nice.

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

#219

Post by chipotle_coyote »

nradov wrote: post #172
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 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.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Babylon_Bee

News stories from satire sites routinely get shared across social media with little context and, very importantly, without anyone clicking on them to check out the source. It may seem absurd to "fact check" them, but it really isn't, particularly ones that aren't very well-known to a wide audience -- which essentially means "anything but the Onion and even they get quoted straight-faced on occasion".

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

#220

Post by Zpalmtree »

ironman1478 wrote: post #161
betwixthewires wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

I don't like what they have to say because its inherently not fact based. I am totally susceptible to bias and I do not claim to be otherwise, but there are certain ground rules we can set. Rush Limbaugh always starts off his rants and problematic messages with straight up incorrect statements. As in statements that are verifiably false. He then constructs arguments around these false ideas. The issue is, to the aver…

I read the article you linked and the article didn't dispute any of Tuckers claims, what exactly are you claiming he said without validating it?
Post reply on HN