Live data from Hacker News

Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

journals.sagepub.com

21–30 of 506 posts

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#21
post #12

There appears to be a recent shift on HackerNews no longer support freedom of speech. I don't know that its just HackerNews either - it seems like its 'internet residents no longer support freedom of speech.' I'm not sure how to interpret this.

Internet residents aren't government. They can't arrest people, lock anyone up, or sentence anyone to death for anything, let alone for saying something. There's nothing there for speech to be free from.

I respectfully disagree.

Internet residents can, quite successfully, remove people from the internet and silence their speech on the internet.

Consider Kiwifarms. I am purposefully NOT going to talk about if something is deserved or not. I am not touching that one again. I am tired of it. That said, internet outrage of a minority led to misinformation (both for and against it) and ultimately resulted in the DDOS protection vendor no longer protecting it. Once that was done, to noones surprise, someone ddos'ed it and removed the ability of others to see it.

Its not that internet residents are trying to stop from hearing certain things - in some cases, they are purposefully stopping anyone else from hearing certain things also.

I don't know that I believe this fully but it seems, some days, the internet itself is a country.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is sad that people who believe in real free speech now have to clarify that they are free speech absolutists. When it comes down to it, I don’t think any of those people you are mentioning ever actually supported free speech - just the idea of it before it came to a head.

Absolute free speech is more of a thought experiment than something that's possible, so I don't really see it as sad that people are only referring to American-style free speech (No libel, fraud, fighting words, calls to imminent lawlessness) when they say "free speech", I see it as practical. Absolute free speech would imply even a lack of self-censorship. I think if you deeply analyse communication you sort of real…

There's a difference b/w having a filter, social consequences for lack of filter, and government restrictions

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#23
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

according to the study, a valid hypothesis is that hn became more stupid more seriously, the shift is not just HN it is everywhere. We have generations of people who have been grown up to self-censor at every step, so by natural extension freedom of speech is not a priority. Urbanization and the evergreen/growth/globalist agenda that comes with it is also in favor of restrictions that maintain the cohesion of large c…

Your comment may be facetious, but I believe that's the most common rationale for censorship - the public is not intelligent enough to handle the barrage of online information.

People who advocate censorship are usually part of "the public".

"People who aren't me aren't intelligent enough to be allowed unfettered access to information. Only I am noble enough." - That's the real rationale.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#24

There appears to be a recent shift on HackerNews no longer support freedom of speech. I don't know that its just HackerNews either - it seems like its 'internet residents no longer support freedom of speech.' I'm not sure how to interpret this.

It is sad that people who believe in real free speech now have to clarify that they are free speech absolutists. When it comes down to it, I don’t think any of those people you are mentioning ever actually supported free speech - just the idea of it before it came to a head.

I think Free speech, Freedom from prosecution for speech and speech without any consequences are all confused with each other. To me, the freedoms to oppose some speech, by way of boycotting, protesting, shunning and shaming is also speech. There’s also the difference between beheading for speech and getting your Twitter account suspended. If someone says absolutely nutty stuff in a town square and the local folks drown him out or threaten to not patronize the shops in the town square for allowing the speech, is that considered suppression of speech?

It seems to me that people are asking for tolerance of speech at all costs. I don’t know if Free Speech ever came with that built in.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#25
I think we can safely conclude that the more intelligent (in every dimension) the average person in a system is, the more effectively and efficiently every part of that system will run

I used to think it was kind of all the same and that law of averages would generally buff out the more irrational and impulsive of us to not actually make much difference to the overall progressive trajectory.

Turns out it's not the case and it only takes a minority of lower-IQ/Q/general intelligence people to really mess things up that should be very simple

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#27

There appears to be a recent shift on HackerNews no longer support freedom of speech. I don't know that its just HackerNews either - it seems like its 'internet residents no longer support freedom of speech.' I'm not sure how to interpret this.

If you really want to scramble your noodle, look at the recent spate of state laws placing restrictions on speech and notice the lean of the parties that control those states.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute free speech is more of a thought experiment than something that's possible, so I don't really see it as sad that people are only referring to American-style free speech (No libel, fraud, fighting words, calls to imminent lawlessness) when they say "free speech", I see it as practical. Absolute free speech would imply even a lack of self-censorship. I think if you deeply analyse communication you sort of real…

There's a difference b/w having a filter, social consequences for lack of filter, and government restrictions

Yeah but the existence of self-censorship implies a fear of social sanction, so if people are still doing it society is still being censored for fear of social sanction.

Remember we're talking about absolutism here, obviously we shouldn't actually be concerned with self-censorship, but it is an obstacle to ABSOLUTE free speech.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#29
I can see how their conclusions play out in real life.

One of the common threads I've noticed across many people when trying to explain why defending freedom of speech, and the free and open exchange of ideas in general, is that they're not just defending some "right-wing" person's rights, they're actually defending their own rights. Because the same tactics and rationales that are being used to suppress and silence the "right-wing" (which is comically everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders these days) will eventually be turned around and used to silence and suppress them.

But so many people simple can't wrap their head around it.

The notion is perfectly illustrated by Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

By protecting the rights of everyone, even people you disagree with, you are ultimately protecting your own rights. Anything else is short-sighted and dangerous.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#30

I can see how their conclusions play out in real life. One of the common threads I've noticed across many people when trying to explain why defending freedom of speech, and the free and open exchange of ideas in general, is that they're not just defending some "right-wing" person's rights, they're actually defending their own rights. Because the same tactics and rationales that are being used to suppress and silence…

How do you protect the rights of those being bullied, trolled, harassed, doxxxed and revenge-porned.
Post reply on HN