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

341–350 of 506 posts

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

#341

Post by remarkEon »

ModernMech wrote: post #335
remarkEon wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of these restrict speech, and I'm not sure how one could construe the text of the laws toward that conclusion. The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is…

Both cited laws were blocked by judges for violating the first amendment. So you’ll have to provide a better argument than they seem to you to be benign, or well within the bounds of government regulation powers. Because the courts disagree with you.

The first is really the first attempt that I'm aware of to regulate social media companies, so it's not surprising that the legal arguments are not that robust or are clumsy at this stage. Surely social media companies are not considered "unregulatable" solely because speech occurs on those platforms. For the second, the article states that only "part of" the law was blocked, and leaves it up to the reader to guess which part. Unfortunately I can't find the actual court opinions, and journalists generally don't link to the primary sources when they have a specific opinion they would like their readers to have, which appears to have worked here.

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

#342

Post by lynndotpy »

nyolfen wrote: post #334
lynndotpy wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool quote out of context, but did you read the rest? I have difficulty believing you're arguing in good faith. If you are arguing in good faith, why are you on HackerNews? Censorship is built-in to the platform with votes and flags, and this is one of the most strictly moderated (censored) social media sites. This isn't special pleading, it's simple nuance. I don't think it's worthwhile to explain why StackExchange…

>I would reject the claim that there's an uptick in people who are against free-speech. I don't see anything to substantiate that. it's hard for me to read this and believe you're arguing in good faith either. there is a level of political censorship ongoing in conventional social media that is unprecedented in my lifetime.

What country are you living in? My post was from a US perspective. If in the US, I still believe you're wrong, and my argument doesn't rely on that either way.

You haven't addressed the extreme limitations on speech the US no longer has, you haven't even addressed the limitations on speech that HackerNews has (which IMO make it better).

You are only repeating your vague unsubstantiated statements and mixing in my language about good/bad faith, without addressing arguments. This is a 2010-ish troll playbook, and you are not making addressable arguments, so I don't intend to reply to you any further.

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

#343

Post by throwawayacc2 »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #290
throwawayacc2 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud Proponents of hate speech laws and their silent enablers would be one answer. Certainly not the only one. > I think what you mean is that people are calling for internet platforms to kick out certain groups. This is in no way a call against freedom of speech. You keep telling yourself self that. Especially when social values will change again as they always do and…

Those laws were made to protect specific groups and their basic human rights to operate in a society. You have you no right to force me to host your opinion however. Especially when that are dozens (hundreds?) of hosts that will pretty much allow anything if they will allow Gab, Stormfront, 4chan, etc.

You cannot have it both ways.

We agreed as a society business are not allowed to discriminate. If businesses cannot discriminate, then your business should indeed be forced to host whatever content I put there, no matter how repulsive you may find it, as long as it is within the boundaries of the law.

Close the door to this and the door to discrimination will open.

For now, it will be in your favour. At some point, societal values will change again. And you will find yourself on the “wrong side of history”.

That is why we made anti discrimination laws and that is why we should stick to this.

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

#344

Post by Bud »

phpisthebest wrote: post #216
ok_dad wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the alternative is to force someone else to host and reproduce your views who doesn’t want to, then I’d say that’s acceptable. I’d you want a large platform on which to spout your views, you should secure that yourself. Your 1st amendment right is to stand on a soapbox in the town square and yell as loud as you want, and that’s all.

That that is a very limited view of the concept / principle of free speech, While it may be technically correct in the context of US Constitutional law, people that make this claim expose their opposition to the wider concept of free expression and likely would be the first ones to support an amendment to weaken the 1st amendment

It's not limited and it's not merely "technically correct". The only thing that has been exposed here is your lack of understanding of how all this works.

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

#345

Post by remarkEon »

slg wrote: post #332
remarkEon wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of these restrict speech, and I'm not sure how one could construe the text of the laws toward that conclusion. The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is…

>The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is banned". The law prevents private social media companies from adding a warning to posts for things like misinformatio…

It's interesting to me that implicit in your argument is that the corporation has some sort of "prime" speech right that users do not, but I understand how you could think that with regard to telling these companies they can't arbitrarily apply a speech to a user's speech (which is what adding a "misinformation" "warning" is doing) based on viewpoint.

We already have tons of laws that restrict what businesses can do, that would obviously restrict speech - like banning discrimination. The law does not, in fact, dictate what private businesses can say. It gives them a list of things they cannot say (e.g. certain races are morally superior). I don't see how that's different.

edit: bad grammar

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

#346

Post by glerk »

ModernMech wrote: post #211
glerk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m so tired of this argument. Who cares if it’s the government, private business, or other citizens who do the censorship? The result is the same: censorship. Next you’re gonna tell me to go build my own university/social media platform/payment processor/ISP/etc. if I don’t like it.

I have some speech I’d like you as a private citizen to platform for me. If you are disinclined to do so, are you censoring me?

Sure, but the impact is negligible because I’m just some guy on the internet, not a platform with billions of users and almost monopolistic control on information sharing colluding with all the other similar platforms to censor certain kinds of speech and amplify others. I don’t know what the best solution is for dealing with these platforms, and I understand it is a complicated issue, but saying “it’s not censorship because they’re not the government” is simply disingenuous.

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

#347

Post by nyolfen »

lynndotpy wrote: post #342
nyolfen wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would reject the claim that there's an uptick in people who are against free-speech. I don't see anything to substantiate that. it's hard for me to read this and believe you're arguing in good faith either. there is a level of political censorship ongoing in conventional social media that is unprecedented in my lifetime.

What country are you living in? My post was from a US perspective. If in the US, I still believe you're wrong, and my argument doesn't rely on that either way. You haven't addressed the extreme limitations on speech the US no longer has, you haven't even addressed the limitations on speech that HackerNews has (which IMO make it better). You are only repeating your vague unsubstantiated statements and mixing in my lan…

i will leave you with this https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1567290905039708160

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

#348

Post by notfed »

nyolfen wrote: post #324
lynndotpy wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue free speech is in a historically relatively good place (from my perspective in the US at least). In recent history within the US, there were times that film was not considered protected speech, comedians were arrested for saying simple swear words, and like a zillion different times protesters and laborers were killed for their speech. Protesters are killed far less often today. Plus, with the internet, peo…

>I'd also be careful not to conflate "people who think free speech is a bad idea" and "people who want limitations on speech." sorry, 'free speech except for special pleading for the ideas i don't like' is not free speech.

This idealism doesn't always work in practice. The more public and popular a forum is, the more we need to weed out spam, scams, vandalism, and other kinds of malware/DoS.

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

#349

Post by amadeuspagel »

kzrdude wrote: post #200
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…

I always think there needs to be a discussion about what "free" means. And just like for markets, what kind of regulation needs to be removed or added to meet the "freedom" goals? Taking away some rights for one person might give space for another, and it's a balance.

To balance different rights itself requires freedom of speech.

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

#350

Post by FooBarWidget »

cortesoft wrote: post #105
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…

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? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? I think what you mean is that people are calling for internet platforms to kick out certain groups. This is in no way a call against freedom of speech. I am not sure why people suddenly believe that being for 'free speech' means that other p…

There are lots of such people on social media, if you know where to look. The trick is that none of them are directly calling for arrest for what people say. Instead they masquerade that under an accusation that attacks your person, e.g. they accuse you of harassment, of spreading propaganda, or of some crime. With the goal of silencing your views — all without ever engaging with the arguments that you provide. This is especially noticeable if you look at topics that are non-mainstream-acceptable.
Post reply on HN