Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

on.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 606 posts

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

#331

Post by zriha »

First online media that removed editor for the homepage and put an algorithm to decide which article is more important than other (based on clicks and shares), we got Kardashians, flat earth believers and everything went sideways. As someone who is 15 years in comms, public relations and media relations, for me, influencers were journalists, not some kid with 1 million followers on Instagram or TikTok. Now they are influencing general opinion and not some experienced journalist that is covering one topic for decade.

Now, call me old fashioned, but now you have generations of people who are "born" on social media, never go offline and now they are parents, and imagine what kind of role model do they give to their children.

It is important for the whole society to engage in critical thinking and build trust.

How everything changed, I will give you an example, COVID-19 breaks, nobody knows what's going on, first weeks of lockdown in Europe, and my first source of information was two people I trust, my mother master of pharmacy (MPharm) and my good friend doctor of chemistry, working in pharmaceutical company. They were my first sources, not some obscure web site, WhatsApp group or Facebook group, but people who read scientific journals and researches.

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

#332

Post by epgui »

inglor_cz wrote: post #321
epgui wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

I fully agree that the utilitarian dimension is probably not the full picture. I really just find it a useful (ha!) idea, and I hope it’s given someone some difficult questions to think about. shrug

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

#333

Post by bondarchuk »

Pyramus wrote: post #330
bondarchuk wrote: post #312

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…

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 dr…

>"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information."[1]

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

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

#334

Post by cf141q5325 »

Nursie wrote: post #291
cf141q5325 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We know some things are wrong, we have evidence that they're wrong, and believing in some of those things can cause people to take actions which endanger and even kill others. That concerns you as well. Thats the whole issue. There is no "reasonable default" to fall back on. That you have identified some rather obnoxious idiots doesnt mean you are suddenly smart enough to tell the rest of the world what to do. Espec…

By your logic, we should never try to establish facts and "I didn't do it" should always be a valid defence for murder, as reality is really complex and making a determination of truth or facts is impossible. What's more in decreeing one version of events to be factual, and imposing a prison sentence on someone for 'murder', the state is acting as an authoritatiran arbiter of reality. Just to add - I specifically sai…

I agreed with you, i am just pointing out that you missed a perspective. When you say that the problems is idiots that would just need to be told what to do its a fetching argument. The problem is to identify actual smart people to do the telling. Being smart would entails understanding not just the facts but the consequences of actions. If you would understand them, and could communicate them, you wouldnt need to force people. If you need to force people chances are very good you are just overlooking a perspective that they see and you dont. Which doesnt make them right or smart, but a working solution never the less likely requires all the perspectives. Which means you understood the problem but missunderstood that that stupid person might be you. Thats why that doesnt work. Seeing as nobody thinks they are the stupid one. Figuring that out is the hard part and it doesnt seem to be solvable through force to me. Force doesnt select for stupidity but for power. Which just means chances are high you end up giving power to stupid people since they are more willing to boss others around.

Differently put, you are looking for somebody smart to fix the situation for you. I looked around and there dont seem to be any to spare so we will have to do with us idiots. And once idiots start forcing other idiots around, those idiots push back. Which leaves us with a lot of pushing and pulling in a worse situation all together.

>Do you have any ideas in that direction?

Most idiots seem to mean well so lets see if we cant agree on a consensus about the state of reality and our criteria for acceptable solutions till some smart aliens show up to run this shitshow for us. We wont find a solution for everything but i am confident we could get really far by just agreeing on a reasonable minimum.

I think the problem stems from the lofty goal of finding actual solutions that arent horrible and applicable everywhere. Which we dont have now. Best we can do is look at existing solutions for specific problems and see if we cant agree on improvements. Being motivated by understanding the cost and risk of authoritarian solutions. Which we can communicate. Which just requires a willingness to communicate which goes out of the window once you create a conflict.

tldr: Trying to dictate what people think was tried and failed multiple times before. Its a really really bad idea. Wanting it to work doesnt change that, since you can explain why it fails reliably. Its the same reason that makes the idea so tempting in the first place.

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

#335

Post by Nursie »

water8 wrote: post #231
paulpauper wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument I sometimes see is that censorship is justified to prevent indirect harm of misinformation. If you want to be unvaccinated, that is your choice, but posting anti-vax content may have externalities , such as convincing other ppl to not be vaxed.

Well there’s been an astronomical number of breakthrough cases on the vaccine so maybe the problem is people like you talking in such a definitive terms over something that is clearly not 100% effective

Can you site claims of 100% effectiveness? Did they come from medical authorities?

As far as I'm aware, even early on in the cycle, realistic claims of effectiveness were being made, with some quibbling over data transparency that were resolved.

As we now have variants to contend with, that effectiveness in preventing infection has dropped precipitously. However the effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation and death is still pretty high.

If it was sold to you as 100% effective you were lied to. But if you were told that there were claims of 100% effectiveness which were clearly a lie, by someone trying to put you off vaccination, then you've been given false information there too.

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

#336

Post by [deleted] »

epgui wrote: post #244
ziroshima wrote: post #4

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…

[deleted]

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

#337

Post by epgui »

bondarchuk wrote: post #333
Pyramus wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dr…

> "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

I would actually agree with this— it’s how I personally use the word, but in as abstract as sense as possible.

For eg.: copyright is a form of censorship.

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

#338

Post by Nursie »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #334
Nursie wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your logic, we should never try to establish facts and "I didn't do it" should always be a valid defence for murder, as reality is really complex and making a determination of truth or facts is impossible. What's more in decreeing one version of events to be factual, and imposing a prison sentence on someone for 'murder', the state is acting as an authoritatiran arbiter of reality. Just to add - I specifically sai…

I agreed with you, i am just pointing out that you missed a perspective. When you say that the problems is idiots that would just need to be told what to do its a fetching argument. The problem is to identify actual smart people to do the telling. Being smart would entails understanding not just the facts but the consequences of actions. If you would understand them, and could communicate them, you wouldnt need to fo…

I think we must be talking at cross purposes, I didn't say anything about "stupid people", or forcing people to have any particular viewpoint.

You seem to be lost in a sea of relative opinion, and of all viewpoints being equally valid/stupid. That's far from always the case.

Again, by this logic, we should never address crime because by it's very nature a court case is trying to establish what are or are not real facts about a case in the face of conflicting opinion. Are we too stupid to have courts?

If not, then we're not too stupid to evaluate reality. That doesn't mean censorship. I'm not advocating censorship. I just don't think we're on such a foundation of sand as your comments assert.

Edit: I am rate limited so can’t respond below, but I wanted to say in response - I disagree that we don’t have the ability to say some things are counterfactual, and I also disagree that admitting this implies censorship or other authoritarian action is either good or necessary. I further disagree that communication is sufficient on its own when propagation of counterfactual information costs lives. Is there another solution? I don’t know, but I do think better education has to form part of it.

Does scientific knowledge “dictate facts”? It tells us some things are wrong, while leaving open the possibility of further learning.

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

#339

Post by water8 »

Nursie wrote: post #335
water8 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there’s been an astronomical number of breakthrough cases on the vaccine so maybe the problem is people like you talking in such a definitive terms over something that is clearly not 100% effective

Can you site claims of 100% effectiveness? Did they come from medical authorities? As far as I'm aware, even early on in the cycle, realistic claims of effectiveness were being made, with some quibbling over data transparency that were resolved. As we now have variants to contend with, that effectiveness in preventing infection has dropped precipitously. However the effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation and dea…

The general assumption at first was that vaccinated people couldn't spread the virus which turned out to be false. We still vilify the unvaccinated when both are susceptible to transmission.

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

#340

Post by Pyramus »

cjfd wrote: post #318
epgui wrote: 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…

Let me ask the question differently: Who would protect human rights?

Extrapolating from your examples it seems that only democracies (and the hypothetical benevolent dictator) grant individuals human rights. The question is: What comes first, democracy or human rights?

Post reply on HN