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

The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 421 posts

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#331

Post by zackees »

ABCLAW wrote: post #237
throwaway13337 wrote: post #95

Society is misdiagnosing the issue here. It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. As long as media companies get the most benefit from people engaging with content, they will continue to promote information that is damaging to society. It may even be true information but when the goal is engagement, it's purpose will be to enrage…

>It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. Unchecked free speech has always been an issue, which is why even in America, where free speech occupies one of the highest rankings of competing social virtues by dint of history, there are still a litany of narrow carve outs. Do you lie to your business parters in the context of a trans…

The problem is that the mainstream media is now a religion and completely intolerant to heterodoxy.

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#332

Post by riverlong »

I'm worried that this situation is going to get a great deal worse. A flurry of disinformation and online noise is somewhat manageable so long as it is coming from humans, who may be paid by a state or an enterprise to drive engagement with controversial topics.

It's going to get a million times worse when this gets automated.

Right now the quantity of disinformation is practically limited by the human capacity to post stuff online, but GPT-3 style automation will remove this limitation, and we will live in a world of all noise, no signal. Our knee-jerk adherence to "free speech" is opening up a dangerous scenario where we are more vulnerable than anyone else to what is effectively a DDOS on our minds.

I explored this topic in more detail in an essay of mine, where I lay out that a world of Anonymity + GPT-3 can undermine free speech by drowning out real human views and opinions with machine-generated, human-looking propaganda. https://jayriverlong.github.io/2020/07/24/gpt3.html

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#333

Post by doktrin »

pdonis wrote: post #186
josquindesprez wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd honestly have a hard time making a case that Fox News is less net bad for society than Facebook as of today. But Fox News feels like the "end-stage" version of whatever you'd call that particular flavor of classic corruption and human-brain-hijacking, whereas Facebook has been visibly improving its algorithmic behavior control abilities, has already invented new flavors of human-brain-hijacking, and seems to be g…

> I'd honestly have a hard time making a case that Fox News is less net bad for society than Facebook as of today. If you were to put "any media outlet" in place of "Fox News", I would agree with you. Part of the problem is that so many people think it's only the media outlets that say things they disagree with that are the problem. It isn't. It's all of them, no matter what side they're on or what point of view they…

> Part of the problem is that so many people think it's only the media outlets that say things they disagree with that are the problem. It isn't. It's all of them, no matter what side they're on or what point of view they're advancing.

You can further reduce this to "all humans will lie and manipulate when it suits them". As a statement it's just as true, but it obfuscates the concept of scale : some people lie more, more deliberately and more frequently than others.

By declaring everyone an offender without further distinction, you are effectively excusing the behavior of the worst actors while minimizing the good faith efforts put forward by others.

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#335

Post by belorn »

r721 wrote: post #329
guram11 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the difference "lies" between lying to befriend and date a girl and sleep with her versus lying so to incarcerate and rape the same girl, the later is a crime when she has no full consent in the act

>Rape by deception is a situation in which the perpetrator obtains the victim's agreement to engage in sexual intercourse or other sex acts, but gains it by deception such as false statements or actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

As the wikipedia article illustrate, the scope is very narrow and depend on the country. A broad interpretation would have a significant impact.

A trivial example would be a divorce where one partner has been caught with a false statement or action. Any sexual intercourse at a date between the lie and the other person finding out would potentially be rape since consent might have changed if the person has been truthful. If both sides are cheating on each other then we would be in the weird state were both were raping each other at the same time, as both would be using deception in order to obtain the victims agreement before the act.

The wast majority of cases described in the Wikipedia article is when one party is asleep, which to me is not about deception at all but rather the state of the victim and their ability to consent. Further down the article, the California case is interesting but involve other crimes in connection to the act which muddles the definition. Last we have the Israel one with the religious aspect, and I strongly doubt a similar case would be allowed in places where such religious aspects would hold less weight. Being consistent under the Israel case, a gold digger would similar be raping it victim since they too would have lied about their interest in a long-term relationship.

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#336

Post by iratewizard »

virmundi wrote: post #242
jacquesm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to those who feast on the likes of Breitbart and Murdoch... pull the other one please.

How about no one should eat the same food group all the time? I get news from here (leftist), reddit (averaged to moderate when all my subs are taken into consideration), Google News (more leftist than not), and 9GAG/Imgur when they post political social stuff. Fairly well rounded.

You're only eating junk food

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#337

Post by taxicab »

ABCLAW wrote: post #237
throwaway13337 wrote: post #95

Society is misdiagnosing the issue here. It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. As long as media companies get the most benefit from people engaging with content, they will continue to promote information that is damaging to society. It may even be true information but when the goal is engagement, it's purpose will be to enrage…

>It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. Unchecked free speech has always been an issue, which is why even in America, where free speech occupies one of the highest rankings of competing social virtues by dint of history, there are still a litany of narrow carve outs. Do you lie to your business parters in the context of a trans…

> unrestricted 'say anything lmao' free speech does not exist

I am baffled by everyone here talking about algorithmic platforms like Facebook and Twitter as if they are a bastion of free speech. They are designed to promote only the most engaging content (IE most outrageous and in some cases literal misinformation meant to feed on your biases).

These services are not a free marketplace of ideas, they are companies which are designed to make money. The more eyeballs on screens, the more money they make, and it is not well reasoned discussion with a diverse representation of viewpoints that keeps people glued to their devices.

Consider how you respond to someone making an incorrect statement on Twitter. You reply to them, and by replying to them you amplify the audience of the incorrect tweet. The fact that your correction causes misinformation to spread isn't a bug, it is exactly how the platform was intended to work, because it causes "engagement."

"The solution is more free speech" doesn't work here because the platforms don't have free speech and never did to begin with. All people are asking is for those platforms which currently promote outrage above organic content to sort themselves out. Not any of these strawmen about creating a "bureau of truth" or "state censorship boards" and certainly not notions of making an American KGB which I think I saw mentioned somewhere.

I have no idea of the best way to do this. Treat the negative effects of algorithmic platforms as some sort of externality? Develop strict regulation on what types of methods to keep people hooked on social media are considered ethical? Similar to how drugs or gambling are already regulated? Just straight up ban this type of business model?

It's going to be one of the big questions of the next decade. Even something like a user generated flag where if enough people press it, a tweet has a big warning over it saying "this is a contested matter" or something would be better than the current situation.

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#339

Post by taxicab »

hechang1997 wrote: post #285
throwaway13337 wrote: post #95

Society is misdiagnosing the issue here. It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. As long as media companies get the most benefit from people engaging with content, they will continue to promote information that is damaging to society. It may even be true information but when the goal is engagement, it's purpose will be to enrage…

Yes, currently the 2nd amendment only guarentees that no censorship comes from government. We need a stronger guarantee: no censorship on any public discourse from any party. Not any kind, because even well intentioned censorship causes problems! Using reddit as an example: suppose there is a subreddit A that discuss news and politics, and the mods ban racist comments. If you are a racist, will you change your racist…

Unless you are planning to gun down some state censors, then I'm guessing you mean the first amendment.

Re: The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

#340

Post by simonh »

ABCLAW wrote: post #237
throwaway13337 wrote: post #95

Society is misdiagnosing the issue here. It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. As long as media companies get the most benefit from people engaging with content, they will continue to promote information that is damaging to society. It may even be true information but when the goal is engagement, it's purpose will be to enrage…

>It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. Unchecked free speech has always been an issue, which is why even in America, where free speech occupies one of the highest rankings of competing social virtues by dint of history, there are still a litany of narrow carve outs. Do you lie to your business parters in the context of a trans…

I think one significant difference in these cases is access to alternative channels of information. Fir example when buying a property you are very highly reliant on the information you get from the vendor in making your judgement, you can hire a surveyor etc, but the owner occupier is in a uniquely privileged position. The same often goes for a party too a business transaction, especially with respect to their future intentions. In political discourse there are generally plenty of alternative sources of information and opinion though.

Also contracts and personal relationships are between two specific parties with defined responsibilities, but voting is not as direct and specific as that.

Post reply on HN