Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020) • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by wizofaus » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 8:04 PM UTC

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 people in positions of power to limit speech are often wrong.

But they're always right about when to limit physical activity (violence etc.)? It's just as conceivable that we'd be better off as a society if certain forms of physical violence by private citizens weren't illegal vs certain actions of "verbal" activity (publishing child pornography, or classified military secrets) being permissible by law.

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

#382

Post by LudwigNagasena » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 8:04 PM UTC

MiguelX413 wrote: post #357

renlo wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This but unironically and unsarcastically, the problem is the centralization of infrastructure itself.

Centralization of infrastructure that benefits from the economies of scale shouldn’t be a problem.

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

#383

Post by wpietri » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 8:10 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #233

wpietri wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You fight bad ideas with better ideas. This does not in fact work for hate. If you think you can prove otherwise, give it a go. But take a look at the rise of bad ideas over the last 30 years. Take a look at how dis- and mis-information have caused so much harm. > That's a false choice. No, it's not. Because people who are subject to sufficient online hate will leave the platform or never sign up. And it doesn't ha…

> This does not in fact work for hate. Then how did Daryl Davis succeed in convincing hundreds of KKK members to renounce their hate? How did the Black Panthers and the KKK unite to fight for a common cause, culminating in those KKK members also renouncing their hate? > But take a look at the rise of bad ideas over the last 30 years. What rise? Prove there's been a rise that's unusual in historic terms. Ideas trend a…

[flagged]

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

#384

Post by rgrieselhuber » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 8:11 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #274

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the “if you don’t like it, go build your own multi-billion dollar monopoly internet service” argument. And then it’s just one more step to call for public-private partnerships in combatting “misinformation.”

It's literally trivial to have your own twitter/facebook/youtube analog. You can in turn spread information about its existence through exciting means like email. You aren't entitled to an audience of hundreds of millions and indeed have never in the history of free speech been entitled to such.

When taxpayer-funded officials are telling private companies what to censor, your argument falls on its face. It has nothing to do with how hard it is to build a website.

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

#385

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 8:13 PM UTC

wizofaus wrote: post #365

chroma wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three problems with that: 1. Every time you restrict what people are allowed to say or write, you are in effect restricting what people are allowed to hear or read. I read and listen to many things I disagree with. Sometimes I even find the content abhorrent. But I don’t want the government saying what I can and can’t read. 2. Who decides? Any government body with such powers is ripe for abuse. And do you expect such…

>But I don’t want the government saying what I can and can’t read So because you personally don't want something, you're arguing free speech should be completely unrestricted even if it's demonstrably causing harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre)? You're OK with the government restricting how you can physically interact with others (assault/battery etc.) but somehow you believe that the way you verbally interac…

> "...you're arguing free speech should be completely unrestricted..."

Just wanted to remark that this is the "free speech absolutist" strawman, which basically attempts to imply that if a person believes a single restriction on speech should be opposed, then they must logically also believe that any and all restrictions on speech should be opposed, no matter how heinous the speech is. This is, of course, obviously not true and such invalid rhetorical tactics should be pointed out where ever it occurs.

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

#386

Post by greaterthan3 » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 8:16 PM UTC

jscipione wrote: post #269

P0l83q4p1Hw3Ul wrote: post #33

Is Freedom of Speech important for a democratic society to survive? Right wing extremists would say yes. In fact, this is why they believe we shouldn't allow low cognitive ability immigrants into the country or let them vote.

Quoted post unavailable.

>For example the FBI told social media companies the the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation

They didn't, they only gave a general warning to watch out for misinformation[1].

Facebook censored the Hunter Biden laptop story on their own volition. Zuckerberg mentioned FBI in that Rogan interview to muddy the waters and deflect responsibility. He didn't actually say that FBI ordered them to do anything.

[1] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-responds-...

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

#387

Post by LudwigNagasena » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 8:16 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #222

slavik81 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionar…

Persuasive and well written. It certainly seems applicable for example to the anticommunist fervor that the US dealt with in decades past for example. On the other hand that passage seems uniquely inapplicable to our modern times which are more free of societal oppression than almost any time previously. Neonazis, communists, would be anarchists, followers of 1000 cults and political groups many mutually offensive to…

> Their speech is dangerous. It's not a given that they will be defeated. Establishing some standards on platforms to deny them a mass audience while still keeping the wide open internet free for anyone to use seems virtuous.

I don’t get how it is any different from the anticommunist fervor you are decrying. Your stand is basically to let various crazy people to have crazy ideas unless there become too many of them and they would be deemed a threat at which point they should be censored and discriminated.

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

#388

Post by wizofaus » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 8:18 PM UTC

chroma wrote: post #378

wizofaus wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But I don’t want the government saying what I can and can’t read So because you personally don't want something, you're arguing free speech should be completely unrestricted even if it's demonstrably causing harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre)? You're OK with the government restricting how you can physically interact with others (assault/battery etc.) but somehow you believe that the way you verbally interac…

The "fire in a crowded theater" analogy is from Schenck v. United States[1], in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr sent socialists to prison for distributing flyers that protested the draft in World War I. So yes I am against more restrictions on speech. Any restriction will be abused by those in power. The cure is worse than the disease. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

But all that demonstrates is that even with the strong free speech protections guaranteed by the constitution, if the government wants to shut down particular behaviour it will find a way. FWIW I agree that prison is an unreasonable way to handle distribution of flyers protesting against a law, but I wouldn't have an issue with them simply being removed from public places, which might have been the result if the government had more freedom of choice on when censorship was justifiable.

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

#389

Post by impossiblefork » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 8:21 PM UTC

kybernetyk wrote: post #17

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #3

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.

>I'm not sure how to interpret this. The normie masses joined the internet. Simple as that.

I don't think that was at all what happened.

I'm a Swede, so I'm slightly disconnected from American politics-- to me the people that are shocking or must be loved or anything else in American discourse are much less shocking or to be loved, basically, everything I feel about American politics is very strongly muted; and in the past I haven't had any conflicts with the Americans I know-- they were all pro-free speech, I think. Certainly, the idea of them supporting large-scale censorship by gatekeepers controlled by powerful individuals like billionaires or the political establishment would have been unthinkable.

However, in the years after the 2016 election they all flipped completely. From my point of view they became dogmatic, insane and willing to do things that I saw as long-term self harm, or at least creating a situation where they made themselves helpless to protect themselves in the long term.

They also ended up very strongly anti-Assange because of a feeling that Assange had helped Trump, even though they from their previous views would have been likely to support what he did.

I have a vague feeling that there's been some kind of major propaganda effort whereby only official views are to be regarded as acceptable and that's it's related to the big internet companies. There is some public information on efforts in this direction in the context of preventing spread of non-official views-- called things like efforts at 'anti-disinformation'.

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

#390

Post by wizofaus » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 8:25 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #385

wizofaus wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But I don’t want the government saying what I can and can’t read So because you personally don't want something, you're arguing free speech should be completely unrestricted even if it's demonstrably causing harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre)? You're OK with the government restricting how you can physically interact with others (assault/battery etc.) but somehow you believe that the way you verbally interac…

> " ...you're arguing free speech should be completely unrestricted... " Just wanted to remark that this is the "free speech absolutist" strawman, which basically attempts to imply that if a person believes a single restriction on speech should be opposed, then they must logically also believe that any and all restrictions on speech should be opposed, no matter how heinous the speech is. This is, of course, obviously…

The poster seemed quite clear in their view that any restrictions on free speech at all were a bad idea. And if not, the whole debate, as others have noted, is just one about where to draw the line(s). Personally I'm happy to live in democracy where we can choose between potential governments who may wish to draw those lines in different places.