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

231–240 of 421 posts

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

#231

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #160
dkdk8283 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with regard to hate speech (although "support" is too strong a term). What the Westboro Baptist Church does is abhorrent, but I'm in favor of their right to say those things (although I don't think private companies need to give them a platform). But this article is primarily focused on "misinformation", and I think that's more complicated. It's one thing to legitimately believe something abhorrent, and to ex…

Nobody in the Westboro baptist church is causing mass protests and riots either to put it in perspective. But because they are a nutjob right wing christian sect, the internet overlooks that. Because it's not part of "their tribe."

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

#232

Post by jdkee »

thesagan wrote: post #168
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.

It's a problem. Been one since the Spanish-American war. Some of the biggest source of advertising revenues for news media organizations comes from defense companies. The New York Times pushed for the Iraq war, for example. They fired journalists who reported dovish news, too. Many others left to report as freelancers so they could paint more accurate pictures in smaller publications. Similarly, MSNBC will bring on e…

I don't see a lot of military or defense contractor ads in the NYT.

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

#233

Post by betwixthewires »

acituan wrote: post #165
betwixthewires wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead I propose this solution; marketplace of ideas now has to incorporate the marketplace for AIs that curate those ideas to be complete. I don't know about this. Interesting proposal. I don't normally take a cynical view, but humans are emotional creatures, otherwise these dishonest mechanisms of generating engagement wouldn't work. In such a system it is likely that the most emotionally motivating algorithms w…

> Beyond that, why does one company need to make multiple algorithms? Why do we need a law to enforce this? I meant they are enforced to open their content for licensing. The market we have today is for services that are actually a bundle of things; youtube is both a video infrastructure and a recommendation engine. Twitter is both an infrastructure for textual content, for a network of people and a recommendation en…

Well there are things like mastodon, for example, they serve the first 2 purposes (content and networking) without any real tampering with recommendations. I use it, it is very popular. UI wise it is almost identical, UX wise it has some unique behaviors that come with very powerful advantages IMO. It also doesn't have any design features built with a goal of maximum engagement.

For the most part, I'd say people have found recommendation engines to be nuisances at best, tools of control to many. The idea of the network effect seems to suggest that the largest draw with these sites is the content. Of course, the recommendation engine has it's effect on the perceived content, and it's possibly addictive nature has an effect on the available content, so the interaction there is still fuzzy. As another comment here pointed out, people see the algorithm the same way a fish sees the water it is in. They only see content, in their mind the site is the content, they don't see an engine.

My idea of a "maximum wellbeing" algo for recommendations is a chronological timeline. It is up to me to engage with what I want to engage with. Maybe that isn't ideal for applications similar to YouTube. I've seen a pretty simple ranking algorithm used in a project called Lemmy (FOSS federated community oriented link aggregator) that I think is phenomenal.

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

#234

Post by indymike »

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…

All of this really is just saying, lying works.

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

#235

Post by wussboy »

Barrin92 wrote: post #211
Zpalmtree wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed. I can’t stand this rhetoric of “I can think of a way this reasonable and useful policy might possibly be abused so let’s throw the entire thing in the trash. I refuse to mitigate any harm or accede to any policy unless it’s perfect!”

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

#236

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#237

Post by ABCLAW »

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.

Unchecked free speech has always been an issue, which is why even in America, where free speech occupies one of the highest rankings of competing social virtues by dint of history, there are still a litany of narrow carve outs.

Do you lie to your business parters in the context of a transaction? We hit you with fraud, misrepresentation, or any number of torts. Do you threaten someone with bodily harm? Oh boy. Cyberbullying? Depending on your state, that might be a problem. Lying while under oath or to a federal agent? That's potentially a few years behind bars.

So yes, unrestricted 'say anything lmao' free speech does not exist. It has never existed. It will never exist.

Everyone who does us the disservice of trotting it out as if it does exist is creating a strawman which distracts us from a more honest conversation.

Which isn't 'should there be a line at all?' It's 'where should that line be drawn?'

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

#238

Post by echelon »

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.

>> Companies that make their money selling ads

> Which includes...the New York Times. And all other media companies.

Netflix?

It doesn't have to be so. But you have to pay for the product.

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

#239

Post by betwixthewires »

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…

Well you didn't answer my questions, which is OK, you appear to be partisan, which is also OK. What you're advocating I very much disagree with, even though I'm not sympathetic to any of the names you named I think it is very short sighted to advocate restricting speech of any kind and will inevitably lead to victimization of more people than any speech could. Also, particularly, I think classifying any sort of speech as a hate crime like you have done is irresponsible at the very least.

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

#240

Post by wussboy »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #136
crazygringo wrote: post #57

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. 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 do…

I agree. But how do you stop a foreign actor from doing the abuse? I think this is where we need to lay the responsibility at the feet of the social media networks that allow this to happen.
Post reply on HN