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

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

journals.sagepub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 506 posts

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

#291

Post by cies »

gonehome wrote: post #209
cies wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance. Yup, that's me. What's wrong with that according to you? If your expression is promoting violence, especially violence against a vulnerable group (children, minorities, I'd say even animals), I'm okay with drawing up laws against such things. Thereby reducing freedom of expression. Advertising for instance. If every building/land owner or municipality could…

The issue is that when we abandon the general principle it immediately becomes a question of what speech is ok to ban and this can be weaponized by rivals. People always imagine themselves or people they agree with in the position of determining what gets banned, but they should imagine their political rival or enemy in that position. The free speech principle is about setting the bar such that everyone agrees on the…

> The issue is that when we abandon the general principle it immediately becomes a question of what speech is ok to ban and this can be weaponized by rivals.

The question of what speech is ok to ban is THE question. I think we all agree there's a line somewhere. I think it's more than one line, it's a bunch of line.

Private expression, public expression, public expression for monetary gain (ads), public expression without age-wall, ...

> People always imagine themselves or people they agree with in the position of determining what gets banned, but they should imagine their political rival or enemy in that position.

No need to imagine, it's what I currently see happening.

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

#292

Post by sejje »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #266
sejje wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Domain registrars and webhosts are canceling accounts based on content, so no, not anyone can use the internet to communicate.

you don't need a domain and a web host to comunicate. it's easier, nobody can deny that, but phone companies don't sell you a name, they sell you an address and the right to use the pipes. if people have the will they have the means. freedom of speech doesn't mean that speech should be provided free of charge by private companies. But honestly you can move your domain on any maintainer you want.

I didn't say for free, I don't think anything is or should be free.

We have "the phone company" equivalent on the internet (registrars and hosts) denying access to ideologies they don't approve of. If you don't think that's denying speech, then let's just agree to disagree.

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

#293

Post by stjohnswarts »

29083011397778 wrote: post #240
Tenobrus wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking the US first amendment and how freedom of speech relates to governments, but that's only a limited subset of the general concept of free speech. Obviously discussions around platforms involve more complexity, but for example if AT&T started refusing to send my texts based on what kinds of ideas I was arguing for then this is a serious attempt to limit speech and discussion which is morally incorrect, r…

Looking back, I've had issues with Facebook not sending some messages. One attempt with a torrent site, and one sending a .exe file. The difference with your example is AT&T is America-only, while Facebook is a behemoth that enforces their morals world-wide. Can .exe files be dangerous? Yes. So inform or warn users, instead of silently failing.

I believe such actions are to let robots think they have succeeded. If you want to send an exe you can 7zip it up and put a password on it. Sure it's a little inconvenient but it's an option.

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

#294

Post by bee_rider »

Dig1t wrote: post #55

I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…

In the past and in the present endorsing certain ideas would make people less likely to want to associate with you. The mix of ideas that will make people less likely to want to associate with you has changed, and as such the need to self-police is falling on populations that haven't felt it before, but we'd have to really get into the weeds to work out if the number of "off limits for polite society" topics has really grown.

Some things that have changed. First, many social interactions have shifted to the online space, and we've failed miserably to provide a public square online. There mostly isn't one, only the online equivalent to shopping malls and private clubs (albeit with permissive entrance requirements). These shopping malls and private clubs have become so ubiquitous that only people with opinions too extreme for them are looking for alternatives. As a result, the few public spaces that somehow pop up in the cracks become the host of concentrated extreme speech, which is not really a viable foundation for a community.

Second, the current online platforms record everything posted on them in perpetuity. Many of them make this content infinitely searchable. To some extent this is just the nature of digital communications, they are inherently easy to archive. So, us smallfolk have lost the benefit of ephemeral communications. This is a big deal -- I think lots of us who grew up in the pre-internet era have some memory of saying something that's in retrospect pretty embarrassing, but is now lost to time.

It is one thing to say something in front of friends and get called out by people you have real relationships with, and another thing entirely to fall under the wrath of the open internet. In fact, I think this is quite bad for public discourse, as a number of people have just been shamed into silence, and others have figured "I've been banished by everyone but the bigots at this point, may as well fit in with them."

Finally, most of the platforms optimize for engagement. Extreme opinions drive engagement. Can you imagine a club where the proprietor placed microphones on every table, selected conversations to amplify? Ok, now imagine the proprietor has a very poor grasp of the local language, and mostly evaluates which conversations are interesting by how large a crowd they've already drawn and how loud the argument is. That's the environment that most online discussions take place in.

It wouldn't be that surprising for a large number of the patrons to ask for strict admissions requirements. The only surprising thing is that we put up with this bizarre business model in the first place. Ah but the drink are free since the whole affair is sponsored by companies and foreign intelligence agencies. All the paid clubs couldn't compete with free.

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

#295

Post by cies »

TimPC wrote: post #252
gonehome wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that when we abandon the general principle it immediately becomes a question of what speech is ok to ban and this can be weaponized by rivals. People always imagine themselves or people they agree with in the position of determining what gets banned, but they should imagine their political rival or enemy in that position. The free speech principle is about setting the bar such that everyone agrees on the…

Porn is speech according to the Supreme Court. The minute we ban child pornography we no longer support unlimited free speech. So pretending that’s the line we are still holding is a rhetorical device rather than a helpful contribution to the discussion on free speech. In practice nowhere in the world supports unlimited free speech and we all draw a line somewhere the question is where we draw the line.

> we all draw a line somewhere the question is where we draw the line.

A secular amen to that, brother!

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

#296

Post by dev-3892 »

bandyaboot wrote: post #243
dev-3892 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing. instead I'm hearing 'there shouldn't be a law that requires a private entity to broadcast X' and 'you really shouldn't say X, and I would strongly suggest that you do not say X' and 'if you say X, there may not be legal consequences, but legal consequences are not the only kind of consequences' so i don't agree that 'the way i…

Oops, it appears your comment has been marked as wrong speech by the hn free speech society.

oh no...

anyway

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

#297

Post by 8ytecoder »

faeriechangling wrote: post #161
8ytecoder wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hidden in your notion of free speech is the expectation that I shut up when you say something offensive to me or don’t agree with - “Brushes off people saying something offensive about them”. That’s what I’m taking an issue with.

Hmm you're right, I suppose you're correct it would be more free speech purist to simply not have an opinion on censorship whatsoever, but to still not engage in it themselves. Censorship can ironically itself be a form of free speech. However I will mention that the "paradox of tolerance" posits that if you don't censor those who would censor others, society will end up with more censorship. So there is an argument…

Right. Essentially, community moderation and no legal repercussions.

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

#298

Post by renlo »

dev-3892 wrote: post #192
MichaelCollins wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? The way it works is: "Sure I support free speech, but saying X is not free speech and saying it should be against the law because its offensive and might incite violence or something." If you object, they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance.

that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing. instead I'm hearing 'there shouldn't be a law that requires a private entity to broadcast X' and 'you really shouldn't say X, and I would strongly suggest that you do not say X' and 'if you say X, there may not be legal consequences, but legal consequences are not the only kind of consequences' so i don't agree that 'the way i…

Yea! Why should phone companies be forced to carry conversations they don’t want you to have over their networks? Why should ISPs be forced to serve content they don’t want you to see? If you want to call the competitor of ATT to switch your service, well you need to do it using a competitor’s line, and, if you want to view competing plans over Comcast’s internet, well you need to do that at the library or on someone else’s network! Obvious \s, the issue is that these “broadcast companies” are used by everyone, and should be treated as a utility.

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

#299

Post by pstuart »

benreesman wrote: post #279

The methodological flaw here is amusingly it’s own fascinating study: using some verbal sophistication proxy as a cognitive ability proxy to correlate political attitudes is arguably the key feature of modern hyper-polarized, Internet-speed news cycle politics. It’s difficult to watch a screen without hearing some version of “most people are stupid”. This is deeply wrong: most people are very smart , but this is diff…

I'm not sure about the policies bit. Sure, on the social front God, Guns, and Gays are powerful motivators to get those people to vote.

But economic policies from the same side seem to be mainly about lowering the tax burden of the rich.

What am I missing?

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

#300

Post by peoplefromibiza »

sejje wrote: post #292
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you don't need a domain and a web host to comunicate. it's easier, nobody can deny that, but phone companies don't sell you a name, they sell you an address and the right to use the pipes. if people have the will they have the means. freedom of speech doesn't mean that speech should be provided free of charge by private companies. But honestly you can move your domain on any maintainer you want.

I didn't say for free, I don't think anything is or should be free. We have "the phone company" equivalent on the internet (registrars and hosts) denying access to ideologies they don't approve of. If you don't think that's denying speech, then let's just agree to disagree.

the equivalent is an IP address.

having said that, in 2022 with a fiber connection and a 200$ NAS (with a very user friendly web interface) you can host a DNS, a web server, a WordPress instance, a mail server, a mastodon instance and serve a lot of content.

that's what decentralized internet is all about.

Post reply on HN