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

301–310 of 421 posts

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

#301

Post by joshuamorton »

guram11 wrote: post #287
joshuamorton wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Lying to defraud someone is illegal because they don't have full consent, but lying to make someone misvote is not because...they do have full consent. I don't follow.

If you lie to me and I end up signing a contract that benefits you vs. if you lie to me and I end up signing a ballot that benefits you. Where's the difference?

I'm not going to touch this analogy, it's in bad taste and doesn't elucidate anything.

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

#302

Post by rayiner »

versteegen wrote: post #284
pdonis wrote: post #186

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. 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…

> 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

A lot of their journalism isn’t that great anymore either. (In the last 3-5 years, there has been a massive upheaval in the ranks as revenues have declined and experienced journalists have left.)

E.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/nyt-1619-project-...

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

#303

Post by refurb »

tzs wrote: post #252
refurb wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we start censoring everything people might misinterpret we might as well just throw in the towel at that point.

Pointing out that a satirical article is not actual news is censoring it?

I misread that, so I’ll modify my statement. “If we fact check everything people might misinterpret we might as well throw in the towel”.

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

#304

Post by rayiner »

adamsea wrote: post #266
pdonis wrote: post #186

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. 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…

> They will all lie and manipulate when it suits them. Absolutely. At the same time I think it makes sense to single out Fox News at this current moment. For several years now they have they been a straight-up propaganda mouthpiece. They’re noticeably worse. I’d call myself a Progressive, but FWIW as a habit I don’t watch any television news regularly - I read. Point being I think it’s reasonable to say that you can’…

Fox News isn’t designed to be even handed. “Fair and Balanced” is an inside joke. It’s designed to bring balance to a media industry that skews heavily left by offering the countervailing view on issues. (I do agree it’s gone downhill since Ailes left. Megyn Kelly has said as much.)

To put it differently: you cannot understand what’s going on in the world just reading the NYT and watching CNN, especially in the Trump era. Those outlets may oftentimes be closer to the truth in their conclusions, but they’ll completely strip context and nuance from issues in favor of preferred narrative. CNN will happily air a video with buildings burning in the background and “mostly peaceful protests” in the chyron: https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-panned-for-on-air-graphic-...; https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/only-some-kinds-of-pro....

One thing that’s remarkable is that in the last 6 months, I’ve had Democrats confide to me that they’re harboring skepticism of the media because they noticed how much the media downplayed the violence of what was happening in their cities.

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

#305

Post by [deleted] »

hechang1997 wrote: post #285
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…

[deleted]

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

#306

Post by Aunche »

remarkEon wrote: post #90
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…

I find it very interesting (but understandable) that tech people, obsessed with data and informed decision-making, are essentially stating that "this time will be different" when arguing for speech restrictions. Despite all the decades of history of these sorts of things going sideways, somehow we're still optimistic that this time we'll get it right.

Well too much free speech on Facebook allegedly caused the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar. Either that free speech sensationalized the role of Facebook in the genocide to the point where Facebook doesn't have free speech.

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

#307

Post by greggman3 »

versteegen wrote: post #284
pdonis wrote: post #186

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. 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…

All media is biased. It might not be as blatant as Fox but it's still there, in the tone the reporter takes, in the types of questions they ask, in the attitude of their responses to answers, in which parts they emphasize, etc...

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

#308

Post by toast0 »

nradov wrote: post #281
toast0 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The Onion is available in newsprint, like a newspaper (or at least, it was). It has all the trappings of a newspaper, but everything is not real (but the ads). If that doesn't make it a fake newspaper, I don't know what does.

Weekly world news (is that still in print?) is maybe more fake, but they're both fake.

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

#309

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

nradov wrote: post #283
shadowgovt wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not sure they could be clearer, which is kinda the problem. I don't think these kind of satire sites should be illegal, or even necessarily removed from Facebook. But given how inevitable it seems to be that even reasonably well-informed people will get tricked, it's hard for me to look at them and see a net positive to society.

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

#310

Post by engineer_22 »

throwaway13337 wrote: post #185
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.

Absolutely. Media - especially news media - wherein the product is advertising has always had a perverse incentive structure to stir up society to get more eyeballs. Key in this is the insight that what keeps humans engaged most is angry righteousness and tribalism. The difference is that media never had the tools that are now available to track, optimize for engagement, and also amplify that engagement with immediat…

Nationalize Facebook.
Post reply on HN