Live data from Hacker News

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

on.substack.com

341–350 of 606 posts

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

#341
post #287
post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it largely comes from a lack of empathy that has been cultivated for a while now through the loss of social cohesion. It seems like across the board (families, friends, local communities, spouses etc), people are suffering socially and turn to insular groups on social media to cope.

I don't think empathy has anything to do with it, and I think that both-sidesing is one of the biggest challenges we face. The trend that I see as most damaging is denialism as a mainstream philosophy. Denialism leads to distrust and fuels libertarinism, which, by it's very design, is a philosophy of decohesion. The beginnings of my education on denial came from people fighting one of the largest denialist projects i…

No post body was provided.

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

#342
post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's try it this way:

1. Do you, or do you not, think that there can be something which is more important than free speech and which leads (among other things) to increased stability?

2. Do you, or do you not, think that if this something is more important than free speech, the consequence of this is that free speech can be restricted for this thing?

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

#343
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fac…

Thats what censorship boils down to and why it doesnt work. The answer to your initial question is being able to communicate why something doesnt work. Which apparently i am to stupid to in this case. But thats a stupidity people can work on, while censorship has fundamental issues.

edit: was an answer to the first sentence before the edit

To the rest, the problem is finding a basis solid enough for authoritarian action on such a delicate problem as speech (which requires another level then say a court case). Its not either quicksand or a rock but a minimum required level on the spectrum. If you dictate facts, you are dictating that this description encompasses all perspectives and every additional one is wrong. More then that, you dictate that those are all the implications. Its claiming you reached the end of knowledge.

You either can convince people that you are talking about facts or you cant. The problem is communication and not lack of force. As the issue here is only solvable with the former without accepting an inevitable crash in the future. You bringing up censorship is counterproductive for this reason. Somebody (not necessarily me) being able to explain that should be an example for an alternative.

Should have had a coffee first sorry

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

#344
post #331

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 i…

> for me, influencers were journalist

Journalists have been serving the interests of moneyed elites since well over a hundred years.

It's good that they finally have some competition, even if it means that flat earthers also get a voice.

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

Critical thinking means listening to diverse viewpoints, weighing up the evidence and the arguments, critically examining them and then forming your own viewpoint.

To some extent critical thinking requires mistrust. If you blindly trust someone, why would you critically examine their utterances?

IMO it's to some extent good that trust in the old institutions are breaking down. They are no longer equipped to deal with the information age and we need to create new ones.

The new ones will need much more transparency in order to engender the trust that was lost. We live in the information age, OSS, wikileaks, public blockchains, wikis... these things aren't going away.

Why is there such a huge fight to get the FDA and Pfizer to publish the vaccine data? The FDA wanted it to take 75 years!

I think people underestimate the magnitude and scale of the changes awaiting us. Will we still have nation states at the turn of the century? Maybe, but it's not a done deal.

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

#345
This is as silly as Nixon's "credibility gap" or H. Clinton's "optics." Society has a corruption "problem", because it is built on power rather than any ethic. People don't trust it because it is untrustworthy, and its ideologies are constructed from ancient myths and revelations organized with retroactive justifications. Censorship is a tool of power to keep people from sharing that lack of trust with each other, that feeling that values imparted to them by their superiors are self-serving and hollow, so that, alone, they can't assemble factions that are dangerous to order. The internet has enabled so much peer to peer communication that people can casually create disintermediated formations at a rate that wesn't possible in society until now.

The actual content of that distrust is also not important and not noble. In the West it's 99% rewarmed Ezra Pound bullshit mixed with American Lost Causeism, Central European Blood and Soil naturist primitivism, Western European anti-semitism still battling over Dryfuss, and a thousand other, smaller revanchist fantasies. Our current order was constructed by men just like them, and any of them could have been (and gave a good try to being) the power doing the censoring right now. The magical thinking and mythmaking that distinguishes them falls away with power and the secular bureaucratization needed to rationalize and maintain it.

In the past, the thing most likely to get you killed was what you said to people. Rebels began secret societies, with fiercely guarded memberships, and disguised their meetings in coincidence and their discussions in euphemism.

You'll be censored when you threaten someone more powerful than you. Your stable lifestyle relies on the order set up by people more powerful than you, not for your benefit, but selfishly. You are their support structure. The reason you weren't censored before is because you actively propagandize for their order openly, and you keep ideas dangerous to that order to yourself. You can't even rebel right, your rebellion is an appeal to utterly orthodox strongmen who resemble nothing other than the great-grandparents of the people who rule you now, and who discarded their fiery, incoherent ideas like old clothes once they grew out of them and settled into the throne.

There are no more people meeting in secret and making effective plans than there ever were, in fact, far fewer because of the overarching domination of entertainment and commercial culture. Call me when you start seeing people hanging from streetlights.

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

#346

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

That is exactly my point - where do we, as a society, draw the line.

suppression of speech != restriction of free speech

It is a very very delicate and complicated balance - what I am objecting to is to ignore that this balance exists.

If you disagree with the word "restriction", let me rephrase as "free speech has limits" or "free speech is not the end goal".

"In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is restricted by time, place and manner"

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

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

#347
post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's try it this way: 1. Do you, or do you not, think that there can be something which is more important than free speech and which leads (among other things) to increased stability? 2. Do you, or do you not, think that if this something is more important than free speech, the consequence of this is that free speech can be restricted for this thing?

1.) yes, and I will give as an example “human life”. I believe killing someone is morally worse, and in many situations more detrimental to social stability (although I wouldn’t be sure how to measure that), than depriving someone of their right to free speech.

2.) yes

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

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something miserable in the figure who enjoyed in their youth the freedom of speech, but from the comfort of age seeks to deny it to others; some deformity of the soul. -Edward Snowden

In my youth there was no internet and no one was complaining that they couldn't use it. Now propaganda and conspiracy theories spread like wildfire. There's no need to censor anything because few can tell fact from fiction anyhow.

[deleted]

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

#349
Scott Adams said something I liked once (this was in the context of a discussion on cancel culture):

"You can't fix what you can't talk about."

Obviously this is a generality and doesn't take into account malicious actors, but in general I agree. Whenever I've seen one group trying to coerce or shame another group into silence instead of engaging in good faith discussion, it has backfired spectacularly.

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

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is exactly my point - where do we, as a society, draw the line. suppression of speech != restriction of free speech It is a very very delicate and complicated balance - what I am objecting to is to ignore that this balance exists. If you disagree with the word "restriction", let me rephrase as "free speech has limits" or "free speech is not the end goal". "In the United States, freedom of speech and expression i…

I think we are in complete agreement, but for some reason you want to avoid using the word "censorship" in the case of a restriction of speech that you agree with (a restriction you agree with). Sure, free speech has limits. Beyond those limits, censorship is applied. At this point it's just an argument over the definition of words, not very interesting.
Post reply on HN