Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Unless you are planning to gun down some state censors, then I'm guessing you mean the first amendment.
The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
361–370 of 421 posts
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “Earth is spherically shaped” is not an “objective truth” if you are calculating the response time of your radio transmission of your satellite over a ground station up north, you need to get more precise than a “sphere”. https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht... > The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people hav…
> "Truth is hard, let's go Postmodern!" isn't a valid conclusion. It's an escape hatch, a refusal to make a best effort and, when it's about something that matters, a horribly dangerous practice which essentially cedes the field to the idiots who have no such scruples. Postmodernism is not the only critique of Kant. Although you're fighting a strawman, I agree with your criticism of postmodernism as used today, but t…
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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. I'm sorry if that's dismissive but it's extremely frustrating hearing these kinds of things in the co…
No, you're not, your muddying the waters to try to cleanse regimes like North Korea.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a free society, you penalize the people who can't act like responsible adults, not the people who can. If the ills of social media are, as you say, (and I also believe), caused by the higher-order effects of many individuals "failing to exercise common sense and critical thinking," then who are we to punish? A phenomenon like QAnon might have been started by a single nefarious person, and amplified by a small gr…
> who are we to punish? I didn't say "punish", I said "penalize". Responsible adults should not have to have their society ruined because irresponsible people are manipulating and other irresponsible people are being manipulated. > it's only because of social media's leverage But what causes the leverage? It isn't just social media; if a billion people read on Facebook that they should drink nail polish to immunize t…
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>> 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 mak…
We do have these. Scientists and journalists. As we know, they aren’t perfect, but they do pretty well.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#366Earlier 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…
Absolutely. At the same time, regardless of what other news you consume, all Fox News is good for is taking the temperature of the American paranoid right and/or your low-information voters with authoritarian sympathies. Or folks who just like the news babes.
Or of those who have a difficult time acknowleding uncomfortable truths. Or do not wish to say certain things out loud.
And before you admonish me - the issue is not a lack of broadmindness on my part, or a lack of desire to debate/discuss. The issue is that Fox News is propaganda pushing morally and ethically outrageous policies. They're not the only one but they're by far - by far - the worst (at this time).
Propaganda is not balance. Fox News these days is propaganda. No news organization should be such. That is the truth, as unpleasant or difficult as it may be for some people to connect the dots to get to the point where they understand that.
Second. I'm pretty sure if you talk to people on the Left - the real Left, not the "center-neoliberal-not-far-right" which sorta is the placeholder for the Left in the United States (although I'm glad to see Progressives beginning to win elections), they'll disagree with you about the media bias of large media organizations.
I think that's part of what prompted the creation of The Intercept. I don't always agree w/them but they're clearly more of a Left publication.
Consider these issues:
- The Gulf War - The invasion of Iraq (Gulf War 2) - Until recently, police violence - Until recently, climate change - Capitalism
And probably more. Plenty of the media outlets you named (and I think NY Times does great investigative reporting) often have not been alignment with the left on these issues, at least initially.
I am always down for discussion but not for obfuscation of facts, denial of the truth, or equivocation on the fundamentals of equality, respect for fellow people, and human rights. If we have to politely agree to disagree, so be it. But please consider what I say.
Oh. And it's important to distinguish between the tens of thousands of people protesting racist police violence since the murder of George Floyd, and the people who have been looting, whether out of rage, poverty, or simply opportunity.
There were lots more peaceful protestors.
In fact, that you kinda tried to imply that falsehood when talking about CNN (who probably did do something dumb) is exactly the kind of fact-distorting intellectually dishonest behavior that is so problematic. It's not specific to Fox, but it is endemic at Fox.
Lastly the recent rise in violence in some cities is worth talking about some other day, in some other conversation.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree that citing authority is not an argument. I only contend here that the GP made an inaccurate summary in dismissing Mill's argument; and that argument is only one chapter, not the whole book as you might think from the way it's cited. You might find it pretty on point: he wrote in Victorian times which were also a local maximum of social pressure to profess the correct thoughts. Also a time with unp…
I find it hilarious that my comment got flagged by - supposedly - the proponents of free speech.
One of the problems with suppressing criticism of even things that are completely true and right, as Mill points out, is that people come to believe the true thing in only a hollow way. I've been thinking that may have happened to the doctrine of free speech itself in the U.S. -- becoming just a slogan kids learn to parrot in school. Hollow it enough and it's easily lost.
(Added: I found I could unflag your comment. I think the snark was undeserved but it wasn't nearly enough for flagging.)
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree that citing authority is not an argument. I only contend here that the GP made an inaccurate summary in dismissing Mill's argument; and that argument is only one chapter, not the whole book as you might think from the way it's cited. You might find it pretty on point: he wrote in Victorian times which were also a local maximum of social pressure to profess the correct thoughts. Also a time with unp…
I find it hilarious that my comment got flagged by - supposedly - the proponents of free speech.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. The question is, if Facebook relied on paid subscriptions instead of ads, would they have designed their algorithm differently? I think they'd still optimize for engagement / time spent on site.
Maybe. I suspect they'd optimize for renewals and new subscriptions so the goal wouldn't be how to get ad clicks and ad views.
Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
> " I also strongly object to the notion that liberals somehow own this, when clearly both sides of the spectrum instrumentalize speech and its suppression when it suits them. " Both sides might do it but it's against the tenets of Enlightment liberalism to do so, so of course those claiming to be liberals justifiably get called out for it. If a person eats meat, they don't get to call themselves a vegan; if a person…
Respectfully, I think that's a silly argument. "Liberal" isn't a label any modern (20th or 21st century) liberal chose for themselves. By way of example: "enlightenment liberalism" doesn't tell us much about whether property taxes should fund schools or whether teachers should earn merit pay, but the term "liberal" or "conservative" strongly suggests what someone believes about those issues. It's about as persuasive…