Live data from Hacker News

Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

on.substack.com

321–330 of 606 posts

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#321
post #244

No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of intentions. But you've really got your head up your own ass if you convince yourself that you are protecting people by deciding the information that is appropriate for them to be exposed to. I just don't understand the shortsightedness, the naivete, or the willingness to discard the principle of free speech.

Imagine you have free speech. Yay! Now what? Why was this so important again? Free speech is not an end goal. It's a tool that serves a purpose. In the relationship between a powerful government and a collection of individually vulnerable citizens, it pushes the power balance farther toward the individual. Is the goal to give all the power to the individual? No, that's not the goal. The goal is to have some sort of e…

This is a very utilitarian point of view. I cannot say that I disagree hard, but free speech is more than just a tool.

It is part of human dignity, at least for some people: not to be muzzled by somebody else on the account that (s)he is of a) nobler birth, b) dominant religion, gender or race, c) physically stronger, d) elected to decorate some office etc.

This is an intangible, but very important human asset. So many people live in countries where they would like to walk free and criticize what they do not like, but must cast down their eyes in fear of every uniform. The feeling of liberation when such a regime falls down is indescribable.

I saw the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution unfolding. It wasn't just a technical adjustment; for the first time in years people could (verbally or literally) spit on their former tyrants and walk free.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#322
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I go wrong in my analysis? You say free speech is a tool that serves a purpose. Then you imply that the purpose of the tool is to push the balance of power toward the individual. The goal in pushing the balance of power to the individual is to have an equilibrium between the individuals' and the government's power. This equilibrium is characterized by an increase in stability. It seems fair to summarize thi…

The “something” in question was not referring to the increase in stability, though it might lead to it. Also, and most crucially, I did not say, or intend to suggest, that “censorship improves stability”. Free speech and stability are not in competition with each other. They’re different categories of things. Please help me out a little and try really hard to not interpret what I said in the worst possible way.

Well, you said one of the things that could be more important than free speech is stability. You did not directly say "censorship improves stability", but if you say that stability is one of the things that can be more important than free speech, it strongly implies free speech can sometimes be restricted (i.e. censorship) to reach the goal of stability.

I don't feel like I'm interpreting your posts in a particularly negative way. I'm just trying to be explicit about the kind of tradeoff you're proposing. If you find yourself flipping your stance once the flowery rhetoric is translated into basic, actionable language, someone is getting fooled and it's not me.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then says masks don't help Actually, they said this: Masks don't help Masks do help, but save them for the healthcare workers Masks do help, get one, a cloth one is fine. Masks do help, double-mask Mask do help, but you need N95 masks Given that even with a properly fitting N95 mask that is form fitting you can still smell everything right through it, I think a properly fit, and negative pressure tested N100 or P10…

I started wearing an N95 with vent immediately. Pretty sure it works to protect me. I asked local public health folks if this was OK (back when they were saying only wear if sick) pointing out it just costs pennies. They said not to believe "misinformation" but they would not arrest anyone for wearing a mask. Vent makes it extremely comfortable, no glass fog etc. Then they said the vent somehow was bad for others, bu…

Whether the vent is bad for others depends on whether the air from your breathing goes through any filter. COVID spreads with aerosols, and the more aerosols in the environment, the higher the chance of infection. You actually need to breathe in quite a bit of viral stuff in order to get infected.

If the vent allows for more aerosols than a closed surgical mask, then the vent is worse for the people around you. It's not really relevant where the vent is in the mask. But whether the difference is significant enough to cause a problem, I don't know.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The status quo is a messy conflagration where initial beliefs were the brush, a combination of mental health issues and social frustration were the trees, and the perverse incentives of engagement metrics provided the high winds. So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's counter-productive to try to shelter people from ideas but also believing that lots of people are very easy to manipulate, even so easy…

> So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's counter-productive to try to shelter people from ideas but also believing that lots of people are very easy to manipulate, even so easy to manipulate that it can happen en masse and entirely by accident. Don't think it is an accident. The ruling class has set this stage by design. There is little to no critical thinking being taught in K-12. Create a malleable p…

Did we ever have a less malleable population? Was critical thinking ever taught? If this is by design, I'd argue the design was there since the dawn of civilization. (Note: no I'm not offering any solution, just making an observation)

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#325
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech by our definition in the US is a sacred and mostly irreducible "holy" thing, as being the very first amendment of the constitution. There is no true democracy without free speech. Free speech is a fundamental atom of a healthy and fair democracy. There is almost never a case where restriction of speech isn't abused to give one individual or group political advantage over another.

It is not atomic and irreducible, even in the United States. How could it be atomic and irreducible if there were exceptions to it? What justifies the exceptions? [1] Please don't be afraid to dig just a little bit deeper. I promise you that your respect for free speech will not be diminished: you'll just be a little bit less wrong in your logic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

I agree with you, but to me this comment came across as a bit patronizing.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#326
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “something” in question was not referring to the increase in stability, though it might lead to it. Also, and most crucially, I did not say, or intend to suggest, that “censorship improves stability”. Free speech and stability are not in competition with each other. They’re different categories of things. Please help me out a little and try really hard to not interpret what I said in the worst possible way.

Well, you said one of the things that could be more important than free speech is stability. You did not directly say "censorship improves stability", but if you say that stability is one of the things that can be more important than free speech, it strongly implies free speech can sometimes be restricted (i.e. censorship) to reach the goal of stability. I don't feel like I'm interpreting your posts in a particularly…

That is not what I said at all. I said that stability could be seen as one of the main reasons _why_ free speech is important/useful.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fear leads to a loss of freedom. When we're afraid, we give power to politicians that promise deal with it swiftly. Pre-pandemic, the right had a monopoly on fear-based politicking. Then the pandemic hit and the left finally got their turn to exercise it. Has the war on terror stopped? No? When do we get to hop onto a plane without undressing ourselves? Oh, but now there's a war against viruses? So you have to undres…

I realise this was a /rant, but it's still spectacularly misinformed and unhelpful. If your hot take on politics is that climate change, COVID and the war on terror are all the same thing and this proves the left and right are both the same, then you're part of the problem. This reads more like a smart person trying to rationalize their cognitive dissonance, when they know deep down they've found themselves on obviou…

[deleted]

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#328
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not atomic and irreducible, even in the United States. How could it be atomic and irreducible if there were exceptions to it? What justifies the exceptions? [1] Please don't be afraid to dig just a little bit deeper. I promise you that your respect for free speech will not be diminished: you'll just be a little bit less wrong in your logic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

I agree with you, but to me this comment came across as a bit patronizing.

Apologies— not the intention, sincerely!

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#329
post #318
post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I ask you "why do we have or need human rights", would you say "there is no reason, the analysis stops there"?

After that one gets into philosophical ethics rather quickly. In practice people not having human rights degrades into much suffering quickly. You said something not-so-nice about the government? Now we throw you in jail! So, why is that wrong? I am sure one can talk pretty endlessly in a philosophy course but in practice there does not seem to be much point. Also, we should keep history in mind. In fact, there is re…

I may not have all the answers, but personally, I think the question is rather important. I am really uncomfortable with the idea of certain things being sacred for no reason. Sometimes I get the impression that a lot of people are fighting for the right things, but by accident. My worry is that I don’t know what then prevents people from fighting for the wrong things by similar accident (eg.: nazism).

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#330
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... Not at all what I'm saying.

Where did I go wrong in my analysis? You say free speech is a tool that serves a purpose. Then you imply that the purpose of the tool is to push the balance of power toward the individual. The goal in pushing the balance of power to the individual is to have an equilibrium between the individuals' and the government's power. This equilibrium is characterized by an increase in stability. It seems fair to summarize thi…

You are making a false equivalence here: Restriction of free speech != censorship.

Every single Western democracy on this planet restricts free speech in exactly the way parent described - as a trade-off between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the souvereign [1]. Even the US has a long list of restrictions to free speech.

The question is not whether to restrict free speech, the question is where to draw the line.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

Post reply on HN