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

351–360 of 606 posts

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

#351

Post by piaste »

BeefWellington wrote: post #278
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.

Here's what I don't understand about this argument: Why do slander and libel laws exist? There's already limitations on free speech in place. The article's broader point is that trust is low in a lot of institutions (for good reasons and bad) and thus the focus shouldn't be on censorship but on improving that trust. I agree with this approach. However I think it is also important to recognize that propaganda has only…

> Here's what I don't understand about this argument: Why do slander and libel laws exist?

I would be interested in abolishing both, in fact. I suspect society might adapt well.

Currently, when someone makes an unsubstantiated statement towards someone, it still carries _some_ weight precisely because the audience thinks that the slanderer wouldn't risk punishment for no reason. Especially if the slander is written and signed.

(And we've carried over this mentality even in the age of the Internet where anonymous slander is largely risk-free. For some reason, when @Goku69420 tweets 'Everybody knows that Joe Blow is a goat-botherer!', our brains treats it more like a fellow citizen writing a letter to the editor, rather than as the digital version of toilet-wall graffiti.)

Imagine if we let a generation or two of legalized slander and libel pass. I suspect we might become used to the idea that even the nicest people will occasionally have random strangers claiming awful things about them, and slander not backed up by evidence or at least substantial credibility will become a non-issue.

Then again, I might be too optimistic. In the heyday of the 'yellow press', did most ordinary people treat their bylines with skepticism and amusement, like most people do nowadays with e.g. the Weekly World News? Or did they have a large audience of long-term believers, like even the most partisan talk shows do nowadays?

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

#352

Post by Robotbeat »

ayngg wrote: post #286
dools wrote: post #240

The funny thing is that everyone commenting here thinks that we're headed towards an authoritarian nightmare, but for different reasons. It's not until you sit with someone and nut out what they mean by "authoritarian" and "censorship" and so on that you realise you're completely morally and politically opposed to them. This shallow political take is what allows so many strange bedfellows to unite on the "political r…

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.

Yeah, I think the only way out of this is empathy.

You don't have to think both sides are morally or rationally the same to have empathy for both sides. The alternative is either mass slaughter or mass displacement, at the extremes. You can't eliminate your "enemy" without either murdering/displacing them or somehow coming to terms with them (ideally, being friends with them). MLK got this right, and he was able to say this without compromising in one iota his stances on social justice, class justice, etc.

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

#353

Post by bogantech »

jrimbault wrote: post #316
colordrops wrote: post #298

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.

> very first amendment So, it's not , it's just the first change to an already existing document. The first article of your constitution describes the legislatives institutions. I (vaguely) know that, I'm not even American.

No post body was provided.

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

#354

Post by dmpk2k »

sgustard wrote: post #226
jltsiren wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That exactly is the trust problem. Why would trustworthy people even try to gain power, if the public assumes that those in power are untrustworthy and corrupt? And why would those in power remain trustworthy when the incentives are clearly in favor of abusing your power and the public assumes that you will do that anyway? It's a vicious cycle, but a virtuous cycle would also work in the same way. Reality shapes peop…

These conditions (power breeds corruption) have been true since the birth of democracy. And yet you could argue democracy in the US has a reasonable track record, with only the occasional civil war. Why is now the time it is under such attack?

Increased availability of information.

It is far harder now to control the flow of information, as some Middle Eastern leaders discovered in 2011, and a short while later the various democracies of the world.

Consider a little the meaning of us having such a discussion here on HN.

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

#355

Post by hhmc »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #290
givemeethekeys wrote: post #248

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#356

Post by native_samples »

jimkleiber wrote: post #263
dools wrote: post #240

The funny thing is that everyone commenting here thinks that we're headed towards an authoritarian nightmare, but for different reasons. It's not until you sit with someone and nut out what they mean by "authoritarian" and "censorship" and so on that you realise you're completely morally and politically opposed to them. This shallow political take is what allows so many strange bedfellows to unite on the "political r…

I was noticing that pattern as well, many people seem to be hurling the same insult but from opposite sides. In a way, it worries me, because the words lose their theoretical meaning and stand more for the assumed malevolence of the other side. If I could wish one thing on the world at this moment it would be for us to realize that most of the people who we believe are attacking us don't actually believe that they ar…

This happens because there's a lot of cultural bias towards being centrist, being perceived as the reasonable middle. People like that a lot, it feels good, so whenever such people try to describe political disputes it's tempting to try and describe both parties as the same when arguably they're not.

This Substack article is a good case in point. It makes it sound like there's two sides, both demanding censorship, and Substack standing in the reasonable middle. But in reality they're only describing one side. They say:

"In the online Thunderdome, it is imperative that you are not seen to engage with ideas from the wrong group; on the contrary, you are expected to marshall whatever power is at your disposal – be it cultural, political, or technological – to silence their arguments"

Are both sides here trying to silence the other?

No. One side is and we've seen that a lot, hence why this post exists and that's partly why Substack has taken off. But the most "extreme" view promoted by sceptical Substackers on vaccines is that mandates are immoral and people should be free to decide, for various reasons. They aren't arguing that people promoting vaccines should be forcibly censored. At least I've never seen any such arguments, not even in comments.

"It’s [always] the other side who shuts down criticism because they know they can’t win the argument."

Is it? Again, people flagging red alerts over problematic COVID policies or data aren't trying to shut down criticism of themselves, in fact they routinely highlight and engage with it by writing long responses to people who disagree with them (knowing full well they'll never get a response).

In reality, one side here speaks but never listens whilst simultaneously working hard to ensure nobody is allowed to disagree with them. And the other side does not.

So whilst I applaud Substack's take, their framing of it is curious and maybe doesn't bode well. They aren't sitting in the middle here because there is no middle. There's one group that wants to wipe the others out completely and will use any tactics available to do so, and then there's Substack that's sheltering those people from the storm.

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

#357

Post by GekkePrutser »

numtel wrote: post #36
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.

> No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of intentions. I would contend that profit is at least partially the intention of these actors, largely indirectly by people who are invested in stock markets. Capitalism is a symptom of power and information asymmetries. A few years ago, Zuckerberg said that all problems would be solved if everybody told the truth all the time. It's not that simple though.…

> A few years ago, Zuckerberg said that all problems would be solved if everybody told the truth all the time.

Everyone 'going transparent' in other words

The circle is looking more and more like the 1984 of our time

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

#358

Post by rapnie »

dools wrote: post #240

The funny thing is that everyone commenting here thinks that we're headed towards an authoritarian nightmare, but for different reasons. It's not until you sit with someone and nut out what they mean by "authoritarian" and "censorship" and so on that you realise you're completely morally and politically opposed to them. This shallow political take is what allows so many strange bedfellows to unite on the "political r…

Wondering to what extent the growing "left vs. right" divide is mostly artificially created as a distractionary strategy to keep attention away from the very real and growing divide of the Have's and Have-not's. And prolong the unfettered capitalism that nowadays is best-served with flawed democracies or even outright autocracy.

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

#359

Post by slightwinder »

dools wrote: post #240

The funny thing is that everyone commenting here thinks that we're headed towards an authoritarian nightmare, but for different reasons. It's not until you sit with someone and nut out what they mean by "authoritarian" and "censorship" and so on that you realise you're completely morally and politically opposed to them. This shallow political take is what allows so many strange bedfellows to unite on the "political r…

Common enemies unite. It doesn't matter what divides you, if you only fight against what unites you. Coalitions and compromises are normal in a healthy society. It's more insane that people are willingly poison society, just because someone has a different stance on an unrelated topic.

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

#360

Post by GekkePrutser »

I really like substack as a platform. They seem to be not as aggressive on monetisation as medium. On my blog I don't want my users be tracked and I want to offer my content for free. Their stance on free speech here I also applaud.

Unfortunately substack is not yet as good on the discovery side.

Post reply on HN