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

Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

thenewhumanitarian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 299 posts

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#61

Post by bena »

dqpb wrote: post #20

I’ve been very surprised at how quickly the American left has turned its back on free speech. I guess that’s why they’ve stopped calling themselves “liberal”, instead calling themselves “progressive”. Much like how the American right has stopped calling the US a democracy, instead calling it a republic. Or how Google changed their motto from the specific “don’t be evil”, to the ambiguous “do the right thing”. After a…

As to the "Don't be evil" vs "Do the right thing", they're both rather ambiguous, but "Don't be evil" is passive, it's easier to condone inaction.

I'm going to try and use an example where we won't have to argue the semantics of whether or not standing by is "evil".

You see someone trip and fall on their face. They're a little busted up, bloody nose, a few scrapes, but nothing major. Walking past them and not helping them at all is "not evil". It's not "good" either. It's completely neutral. The right thing to do is to help the person up and see if they need anything.

Now, to ramp it up. If I see someone getting stabbed, I can easily justify staying out of it. I'm not the one stabbing. I don't know the situation. My only goal is to "not be evil". And since I'm not stabbing, I'm walking on, because I'm not the one being evil here. I can justify that decision in the framework of "don't be evil", but I can't in the framework of "do the right thing".

And of course, they're both slightly disguised trolley problems. "Don't be evil". What is evil? What does it mean to not be it? Where's the line where inaction stops being neutral and starts being evil? And of course, if I believe something to not be evil, there is not end to what I could do.

The same issue arises with "Do the right thing". We have to define the right thing. And sometimes doing nothing is the right thing. Sometimes the right thing is letting the bad thing happen because experience is the best teacher.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#62

Post by vnchr »

hexator wrote: post #48
hunglee2 wrote: post #35

the article is an example of orientalism, presenting the case as if there is no urgency on the matter in the Western world. Cancel culture, de-platforming, algorithmic dampening, account mislabelling, brigading on-platform, account suspension and deletion - all of these things are happening in the Western world, on US platforms. I used to have sympathy with the the argument that 'private company's can do what they li…

There's quite a bit of difference between the government banning free expression and a private company deciding that they don't want intolerable people on their platform — which itself is an example of their free expression.

I think it’s the definition of “intolerable” in the above statement where there’s a problem. Who decides the basis for intolerance? More importantly, who would influence the definition of intolerance for their own ends? How do we coexist when my intolerance is different than your intolerance? What do I do when you decide I’m intolerable?

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#63

Post by seydor »

etchalon wrote: post #23

The article, and its data, is almost specifically about actual authoritarian regimes and actual restriction of speech by governments against citizens. But I predict this thread will very quickly nose dive into "Twitter banned me for saying COVID is a hoax and something something first amendment."

No post body was provided.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#64

Post by hexator »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #56
hexator wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's quite a bit of difference between the government banning free expression and a private company deciding that they don't want intolerable people on their platform — which itself is an example of their free expression.

Step 1 - governments privatises /sells all public squares and large streets in your city Step 2 - private companies that own them hire private security firms Step 3 - if anyone protests, stands with a banner or says anything in convenient anywhere in the city, they get violently removed. Step 4 - folks like you yourself defend it under the guide of 'but it's not a government!' Vioala, no free speech to worry about! Y…

This seems like a false comparison

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#65

Post by golemotron »

dleslie wrote: post #47
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

Popper also sets the limit fairly clearly in his description of the paradox, and it's: > But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer argu…

The thing Popper misses is that once you rationalize your own intolerance, others will rationalize theirs, missing the nuance of his limit. And, indeed, that has happened.

I can't remember ever seeing anyone other than you mention the limit, and that includes quite a few people quoting Popper to justify their intolerance.

I'd argue that Popper left his wheelhouse when he formulated this. It was at the moment when WW2 was ending and the Cold War was beginning. Philosophers, like most other people, hardly ever think clearly when their emotions are inflamed by current events. They are best when they stay away from the topical.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#66

Post by colechristensen »

moomin wrote: post #39
colechristensen wrote: post #3

"I find people who don't think exactly like me to be intolerable" is the bread and butter for controlling a population. People look at the past and think to themselves "those people in the past were wrong, that's why the one acceptable way to think being enforced with power was immoral, on the other hand, my opinions are right, so the ends justify the means". Intolerance is intolerance, regardless of how morally just…

You really should read the article. There’s real threats to free speech out there, not just people telling you you’re an idiot.

The biggest threat to free speech around the world is the failure to lead by example of the western world, particularly by America. It doesn't matter that we're a few notches better than somewhere else, they see us doing the same things by popular demand so doing a bit more themselves is easy to justify.

We're losing the high ground and the argument that nobody else should do the same things we're doing.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#67

Post by kbenson »

anovikov wrote: post #32

Why not take a cynical approach? If free expression is useful, then countries cracking down on it are shooting themselves in the foot. If they want to do it, why stop them? They are delisting themselves from the global competition: set up attractive immigration programs to pick out their most talented population and let the rest sink to Russia/N. Korea level.

> Why not take a cynical approach?

Because things such as local maxima and minima exist, and "local" could be on timescales of decades or centuries.

Also, what metrics are we measuring by? GDP? Happiness? Scientific progress? Species expansion?

It's entirely possible that reducing free expression results in a more stable but more stagnant society, and while that may have immediate benefits, could leave everyone in that society worse off on average than the alternative in a few decades.

To be fair, it's entirely possible that too much free expression could do the same, and the optimal path is in the middle somewhere. I think this is often overlooked, and people think that more freedom of expression is always a good thing, which is odd, because I'm not sure anything taken to an extreme end of a spectrum is necessarily a good thing, and I'm not sure freedom of expression is any different.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#68

Post by seydor »

VictorPath wrote: post #36

> Since he took office in 2000, Putin has been eroding the space for public debate in Russia. He moved from dismantling independent media Right, Russia bans independent media, while those in the free EU can go read https://www.rt.com ... oh yaa, the EU blocks that web site.

The truth is that EU infantilizes its citizens with those bans. It's a war, you want to know the other side's propaganda

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#69

Post by kitsunesoba »

wikitopian wrote: post #22
aaroninsf wrote: post #13

There is a real, and serious, and worsening, conflict between "free expression" of noble and necessary kinds, and weaponized speech, such as disinformation and other tools for sentiment steering. Which is arguably now a significantly worse problem for most societies than mere suppression. Not to mention merely venal "corporate speech" and the deluge of commercial speech (much of it undisclosed).

Is there a way that adults who are capable of critically thinking for themselves to opt out of your crusade to protect us from ideas you disagree with?

Problem is, there’s been an active war against critical thought across multiple fronts for a while now, which includes campaigns in social and traditional media and attacks on the education system. Youth and unwitting adults alike are being trained to stay angry and act on impulse rather than address situations as thoughtful, well-rounded members of society would.

I won’t claim to have a solution, but there are clearly severe problems afoot and ceasing all filtering alone isn’t going to result in an outcome any better than systematic censoring will.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#70

Post by thrown_22 »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #8
colechristensen wrote: post #3

"I find people who don't think exactly like me to be intolerable" is the bread and butter for controlling a population. People look at the past and think to themselves "those people in the past were wrong, that's why the one acceptable way to think being enforced with power was immoral, on the other hand, my opinions are right, so the ends justify the means". Intolerance is intolerance, regardless of how morally just…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

I wish people would do more than read the name of that paradox.

>In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

That people whose philosophy can be summed up as "call everything fascist and punch it" are using Popper as a way to cover their innate totalitarianism is beyond parody.

Post reply on HN