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

281–290 of 421 posts

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

#281

Post by nradov »

toast0 wrote: post #274
nradov wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Babylon Bee and The Onion are exactly fake news. It's humor and satire and looks like news but isn't. What else would you call it? Somehow fake news started also being applied to news that was sourced and thought to be true when reported, but turned out to be wrong when new informatiom became available. And also, for some people, any news that disagrees with your opinions.

How can you label something as "fake" if it doesn't even pretend to be real? If I buy a cheap wristwatch with a counterfeit Rolex logo then it's a fake. If I buy a cheap wristwatch from Timex then everyone knows it's not a Rolex and only an idiot would call it a "fake Rolex".

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

#282

Post by ABCLAW »

unishark wrote: post #272
ABCLAW wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 trans…

Speech in freedom of speech refers to the communication of ideas and opinions, not all communication. The term "freedom of expression" is commonly used to clarify this. Lying to your partner is not a crime. Taking their money under those circumstances is the crime.

>Lying to your partner is not a crime.

If you're intending to obtain some benefit or deprive them of something, but fail to clinch it and 'take their money' as you put it, the statement still triggers liability under most theories of fraud/misrepresentation. Generally some injury needs to be suffered, though.

So no, it's not the stealing. It's the speech with bad intention.

As a sidenote, fraud and misrepresentation generally have some of the most interesting rules regarding evidence. The law really drilled down into what's a sufficient record and what's not in respect of attribution of liability in this area.

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

#283

Post by nradov »

shadowgovt wrote: post #216
nradov wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

You've got to be kidding. How much clearer can they possibly be?

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

#284

Post by versteegen »

pdonis wrote: post #186
josquindesprez wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

> I'd honestly have a hard time making a case that Fox News is less net bad for society than Facebook as of today. If you were to put "any media outlet" in place of "Fox News", I would agree with you. Part of the problem is that so many people think it's only the media outlets that say things they disagree with that are the problem. It isn't. It's all of them, no matter what side they're on or what point of view they…

I think the problem is the addition of "opinionated" content media outlets publish to generate outrage. E.g. IMO the NYT is the gold standard of journalism but a lot of their opinion pieces are not even fit to print.

> It's all of them, no matter what side they're on or what point of view they're advancing.

The premise to your statement is rather telling... why should a media outlet take a side or advance a point of view? It's just not necessary or (IMO) acceptable for the main sources of information to do so. Here in New Zealand we're blessed to still have trustworthy minimally biased media. Australian media sadly seems heavily Americanised.

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

#285

Post by hechang1997 »

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…

Yes, currently the 2nd amendment only guarentees that no censorship comes from government. We need a stronger guarantee: no censorship on any public discourse from any party. Not any kind, because even well intentioned censorship causes problems! Using reddit as an example: suppose there is a subreddit A that discuss news and politics, and the mods ban racist comments. If you are a racist, will you change your racist way if you found your post banned? No, of course not. You would just be indignant and find/make another subreddit B that is more tolerant of racism. The subreddit B is provided the same tools subreddit A uses for censoring racist posts, and abuse these tools to censor any voices that argue against racism. You can no longer be convinced to abandon racism because you are stuck in your comfort zone and anyone who argue against racism are just SJW or special snowflakes in your eyes and their opinions are automatically dismissed by your brain.

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

#286

Post by natmaka »

arvinsim wrote: post #273
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix doesn't sell ads (and doesn't rely on user-generated content, so they can't really threaten democracy), but if you read interviews with executives, they also seem to be optimizing for maximum time spent on the service. Apple, too, reportedly told developers it's increasingly looking for Apple Arcade games that will "keep users hooked" over a long period. [1] Consequently, I'm not convinced removing ad-support…

The quote "If you do not pay, you are the product" implied that if you pay, you are not the product. That is, a profile won't be built around you to be tracked and manipulated. Today it's more like "You are the product, whether you pay or not".

> The quote "If you do not pay, you are the product" implied that if you pay, you are not the product

Such a contraposition isn't necessarily true. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

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

#287

Post by guram11 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #279
unishark wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech in freedom of speech refers to the communication of ideas and opinions, not all communication. The term "freedom of expression" is commonly used to clarify this. Lying to your partner is not a crime. Taking their money under those circumstances is the crime.

But again, this is just the status quo. Why is lying to someone to take their money a crime, but lying to someone to influence an election not? What makes money worth special protections, but voting not?

the difference "lies" between lying to befriend and date a girl and sleep with her versus lying so to incarcerate and rape the same girl, the later is a crime when she has no full consent in the act

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

#288

Post by specialist »

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'm onboard with Haidt's description of the problem.

I was much less impressed with his prescription for mitigating it. Apparently if we all just clap louder, Tinkerbell will fly.

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

#289

Post by Riverheart »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #203
Animats wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The people they fact checked. As long as no one is censored dissenting opinions are free to dispute the facts presented.

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

#290

Post by kelnos »

dcolkitt wrote: post #241
cortesoft wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Lies can be carefully crafted to exploit the way human brains work, Well, sure. But the problem is the censors are also human. If crafty lies can deceive the average person, why do we believe that the authorities are any less immune? I feel like so many times anti-libertarian arguments follow this formula. "Regular people keep making this mistake. So let's just have the government, helpfully stop them from making t…

> It's much harder to deceive 300 million people than it is to deceive a small agency responsible for "arbitrating truth".

In the US, you don't need to deceive 300M people. You just need to deceive enough people (voters, really) to get 270 electoral votes. In 2016, that turned out to be around 63M people.

I'm not arguing with your central point; I do agree that we don't want some central authority deciding what's true and what isn't. But 2016 showed that it was possible to deceive enough people with lies to elect someone who has not really delivered on any of his promises, and has actively hurt most of the people who voted for him. (I won't even get into the toxicity of his political platform as it's not necessary to do so.)

How do we actually combat this? "The solution to bad free speech is more free speech" did not work. I agree that "some non-negligible subset will figure out the truth"; in 2016 that was more than 65M people, but that was not enough. What other options do we have, that don't involve central fact-checking authorities, or, worse, active censorship? I really want to know what they are, because I agree that truth-arbiters and censors are unacceptable.

Post reply on HN