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

321–330 of 421 posts

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

#321

Post by [deleted] »

crazygringo wrote: post #57
015UUZn8aEvW wrote: post #26

It's ironic that Emily Bazelon, the author of this essay, is the granddaughter of the late influential federal judge David Bazelon. Judge Bazelon was a well-known progressive and a well-known free speech proponent. Although his granddaughter shares his broadly progressive worldview, her position on this issue is different. The evolution from David to Emily reflects that of the US left as a whole. Most people like to…

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#322

Post by cookiengineer »

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?

I guess this is why it's called capitalism.

Jokes aside, I think that democracies which are split up into executives, legislatives and judicatives are not well designed from an architectural standpoint.

What's missing is a society of technologically specialized gremiums that evaluate knowledge and truthfulness, and are able to either control the press or to control the legislative process.

So many laws have been created out of misinformation, stupidity, and resulting fear... So that generations to come are harmed by this shit. It's absurd.

In Germany, we technically have the "Rat der Wissenschaften" but it basically has no purpose. It's just there for nothing, and has no power over any other instance.

The irony is that in Germany the only instance that was able to do anything against the misinformation cases was actually the Bundeskartellamt, which serves the purpose of finding out wrong flows of money and does financial audits in illegal syndicates.

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

#323

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

unishark wrote: post #319
joshuamorton wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The stealing is what makes it a crime, not the personal benefit. If you rob someone solely to the benefit of your favorite charity, you still robbed someone. I would assume explicit actions like mislabeling ballots or actually changing someone's vote on them is a crime. Perhaps even tricking people about polling place locations or the party of candidates. But it's obviously very dangerous ground once you venture mult…

This is typical of capitalist thought: property is sacrosanct, voting is worth nothing.

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

#324

Post by kelnos »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #196
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's relevant, sure! But I don't consider lies spread by a hostile foreign government to advance its own interests to be relevant information.

If country's own citizens do the voting, I'm personally fine with anyone influencing them. If we postulate that people are responsible and reasonable enough to have a say in the elections, it is an insult to assume that they are some weak-minded fools who can be easily swayed by a hostile foreign government.

Insulting or not, we already have Exhibit A: the US 2016 Presidential election.

In all seriousness, I think you're framing it the wrong way. It's really: they are normal human beings with fallible intellect and emotions who can be swayed by the sophisticated propaganda campaigns of a hostile foreign government.

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

#325

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#326

Post by cycomanic »

rayiner wrote: post #304
adamsea wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The argument that the media is left leaning seems to be based largely on the notion of "if you don't agree with everything I say and ask difficult questions you must have a left bias". Have a look at this Shapiro interview https://m.youtube.com/watch?index=616&list=LLj44HgVlqL7Qgzft.... For some context Andrew Neil the journalist being accused by Shapiro of a left wing bias, is an ultra conservative. Anyone with some knowledge of the UK media would fall over laughing hearing this accusation.

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

#327

Post by p1necone »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #263
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Agreed. Who snopes the snopes? Did you know Snopes has been shown to be biased since it is ran by people who lean one direction, who stops them from misinforming the public. What about when politicians are exposed and the media shields them are we just going to blindly trust a biased media source? We need to allow the people to review all evidence and form conclusions from said evidence. I cant tell you how many time…

Objective reality leans in one direction on America's political spectrum, objective fact checkers are going to lean closer to the left of America's overton window by default.

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

#328

Post by joshuamorton »

unishark wrote: post #319
joshuamorton wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The stealing is what makes it a crime, not the personal benefit. If you rob someone solely to the benefit of your favorite charity, you still robbed someone. I would assume explicit actions like mislabeling ballots or actually changing someone's vote on them is a crime. Perhaps even tricking people about polling place locations or the party of candidates. But it's obviously very dangerous ground once you venture mult…

But it's still fraud even if you don't steal anything. Lying on a job application is fraud, even if you ultimately do the job perfectly well.

So why is lying on a job application for the purpose of getting a job illegal, unless that job is an elected position? (note that lying on behalf of someone else to help them get a job is also fraud, so the same question could be asked of someone lying on behalf of or in support of a candidate)

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

#329

Post by r721 »

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

>Rape by deception is a situation in which the perpetrator obtains the victim's agreement to engage in sexual intercourse or other sex acts, but gains it by deception such as false statements or actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

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

#330

Post by clusterfish »

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…

You think billionaire magnates and state actors who fund a lot of this divisive content care about advertising profits? No, in fact they have the deepest pockets and will be the last ones standing regardless on what you do with twitter and such. They don't need twitter, its focus on engagement just makes their efforts more cost effective. Cut that off and they'll refocus on buying national and local TV networks or whatever else gets eyeballs and attention.
Post reply on HN