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

When Truth Survives Free Speech

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech

#41

Post by Lukeas14 »

AndyKelley wrote: post #38

This may sound a bit radical, but I'm not even sure I want the government stepping in and doing anything about libel. It's already true that you can't trust everything you read, and this includes articles from "official" journalism institutions. It does hurt to have your reputation damaged, though. That's a tradeoff that is a bit disconcerting, but may be worth it in order to have a more strict, black-and-white defin…

Defamation has always been an exception to free speech. It is also not a criminal offense so the government doesn't have the ability to use it for censorship. Cox is still free to write what she wants without repercussions from the government. Being a civil case all the plaintiff had to do was prove the defendant maliciously inflicted significant harm to his reputation in order to be awarded a monetary judgement.

Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech

#42

Post by acomar »

Strilanc wrote: post #39
byrneseyeview wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's more of a heuristic for determining the health of an infant. An algorithmic approach would give you a definite yes-or-no for all baby inputs. And the analogy breaks down here because the online ecosystem adapts very fast. It would work if there was some sort of gene that led to premature births plus high Apgar scores (the equivalent of a malicious website that ranks well). That's why search is so tough:…

Heuristics are algorithms and algorithms don't have to give definite answers.

No, that's just not true. A heuristic is a procedure that gives no guarantee of a correct answer. An algorithm is a deterministic procedure that does guarantee a correct answer. Heuristics are very useful in making difficult decisions that don't have definite answers, but they are not algorithms.

Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech

#44

Post by ramidarigaz »

acomar wrote: post #42
Strilanc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heuristics are algorithms and algorithms don't have to give definite answers.

No, that's just not true. A heuristic is a procedure that gives no guarantee of a correct answer. An algorithm is a deterministic procedure that does guarantee a correct answer. Heuristics are very useful in making difficult decisions that don't have definite answers, but they are not algorithms.

Erm. Algorithms aren't necessarily deterministic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_algorithm

Primality testing is a very good example of a useful algorithm that gives an answer that is probably correct.

Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech

#45

Post by anigbrowl »

lywald wrote: post #25
andylei wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

she's not a journalist. really. the judge decided this based on the lack of "(1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confi…

Legitimate? Unless it's in a text of law, it's not legitimate. I could argue that he's not a judge the same way.

Wrong. What you are describing is a Civil Law system, where written code has priority over all else. The US has a common law legal system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech

#46

Post by brc »

mcantor wrote: post #33

I honestly do not understand this constant back-and-forth about credibility and validity between "real journalists" and "bloggers". It's as if "real journalists" are some kind of supernatural entity that descend from the universe of Platonic truths to dispense objective information which we can internalize and process without further judgment. Journalists and bloggers share a fatal flaw: They're human . Someone signs…

Exactly.

I see so many journalists complaining about blogs. And I ask : if you're so underappreciated, why not start your own blog?

Journalists insist they have the training and wave memberships and credentials around as if they mean anything more than paying dues and agreeing with other people. When any cursory examination of media will find it riddled with errors, not only of the typographical kind, but of the completely-incorrect-facts kind.

It's just like any other industry that starts to get threatened by disruption from new technology - all the new people coming in are 'unworthy' 'wrong' and 'bad for the industry'.

If you ever want to hear a tale of woe, talk to an old-school photographer about digital cameras and the explosion of part-time hobbyists who do a little bit of work on the side with their $500 SLR.

In reality they are all people just trying to make their way in the world using whatever means they can.

Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech

#48

Post by teyc »

danso wrote: post #6

Carr ends with: >> Then again, I’ve got some institutional muscle when it comes to how I’m perceived on the Web. All Mr. Padrick had was his good reputation. Too bad there’s no algorithm to measure truth. I know he's a writer and needs to end with a real zinger, but it's a cheap shot against algorithms and their role in helping us make correct assessments. 1. There are algorithms which can gauge truth and accuracy. T…

    but it's a cheap shot against algorithms 
    and their role in helping us make correct
    assessments.
But what are we besides our heuristics? Do you remember the mongdb-gate debacle? We rely on people acting in good faith all the time, and rules are in-place to restrain those who have more time than sense.

Incidentally, the First Amendment is very much uniquely American, there is no such provision in Common Law.

Further - even with the first amendment - it doesn't protect some radical americans from being killed by US Government drones.

Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech

#49

Post by forensic »

Lukeas14 wrote: post #41
AndyKelley wrote: post #38

This may sound a bit radical, but I'm not even sure I want the government stepping in and doing anything about libel. It's already true that you can't trust everything you read, and this includes articles from "official" journalism institutions. It does hurt to have your reputation damaged, though. That's a tradeoff that is a bit disconcerting, but may be worth it in order to have a more strict, black-and-white defin…

Defamation has always been an exception to free speech. It is also not a criminal offense so the government doesn't have the ability to use it for censorship. Cox is still free to write what she wants without repercussions from the government. Being a civil case all the plaintiff had to do was prove the defendant maliciously inflicted significant harm to his reputation in order to be awarded a monetary judgement.

The real issue here is not so much the defamation, which happens all the time, but the nature of Google, which gives this lady a giant amplifier for no good reason.

Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech

#50

Post by niels_olson »

So, my ears pick up every few days while listening to NPR on the way to work when reputation.com assures me as a physician that they can "delete unwanted information from the internet". Has anyone had any experience with this or another company?
Post reply on HN