Freedom of Speech
It seems like freedom of speech is becoming more and more of a pertinent topic. Policy in the UK has them trying to “fight against misinformation” by arresting people who have said things online. Misinformation has been incredibly powerful here in the US as implemented by Russia and even our own government. There is seemingly a new misinformation campaign daily on Twitter. With the rise of AI agents and the ability to deploy autonomous armies becoming more eminent and the obvious success of past misinformation campaigning this new paradigm isn’t likely to change anytime soon.
The UK solution seems more authoritarian than anything and not something I would ever want. A core feature of many low quality of life countries is reduced freedoms of speech and information. Turkey just banned Discord. In the other hand, this endless stream of bullshit is likely making peoples lives worse as well. How many fox viewers are paranoid and terrified of boogeymen? How many people are exhausted and fried from fighting against the endless waves of misinformation?
My opinion is that the internet is the single greatest invention ever. It connects person to person, in real time, across the whole globe while providing the culmination of human history to your finger tips. But I’d also liken it to when Johnny Mnemonic downloaded 120 gigs into his 60 gig brain chip.
So what can be done? Is there a way we can train a population to be more adept at identifying bullshit? Should the government do anything to help alleviate the issue?
There is no top-down solution to this problem. The so called experts lack wisdom. I’d rather democracy be on perpetual life support than have those in power attempt to save it through censorship which will inevitably threaten freedom of religion.
There is no top-down solution to this problem. The so called experts lack wisdom. I’d rather democracy be on perpetual life support than have those in power attempt to save it through censorship which will inevitably threaten freedom of religion.
I can't think of any right I care less about than freedom of religion. Freedom from religion, on the other hand...
Sure, I'm free not to practice it. Would also be nice if a certain religious group weren't constantly trying to turn the US into a theocracy.
I don't want to live in a theocracy either, but as long religious institutions aren't acting as official representatives of the government, I don't see it as a problem. If people vote based on their religious values, that's their right, as it should be.
I imagine many high-ranking officials, intelligence agencies, etc. are quite aware of the dynamics and psychological aspects of social media and how the public at large reacts in certain situations and can predict behavior in various hypothetical scenarios with a high degree of accuracy. Don't you think there are powerful or influential people in government that know about the Streisand effect? If they're willing to censor information and speech, why wouldn't they try to manipulate public opinion via "unintended" consequences?
One idea being put forth by a liberal politics streamer Destiny is that we should make it so that anyone with a certain amount of following online should either be unmasked or they should have to disclose their funding sources. Basically we should know if a person like EndWokeness is being paid by some foreign entity.
This isn't too different from disclosures being required for sponsorships. Like the "this video is brought to you by...." stuff on Youtube.
I dunno how that would work out in the long run. It probably wouldn't. Its nearly impossible to enforce.
There is no top-down solution to this problem. The so called experts lack wisdom. I’d rather democracy be on perpetual life support than have those in power attempt to save it through censorship which will inevitably threaten freedom of religion.
I agree with this until you bring in freedom of religion
No. Too many people need it to combat crippling existential dread.
That said, I think there is plenty of evidence available that shows that religion is actually one of the most net-negative things in the entirety of history
At best its a way to explain things we used to not understand, at worst its a form of brainwashing people into being easily controlled
Fair enough. I disagree with your assessment but won't debate that here. I was just wondering because of your response to craig and the link to free speech/expression.
I imagine many high-ranking officials, intelligence agencies, etc. are quite aware of the dynamics and psychological aspects of social media and how the public at large reacts in certain situations and can predict behavior in various hypothetical scenarios with a high degree of accuracy. Don't you think there are powerful or influential people in government that know about the Streisand effect? If they're willing to censor information and speech, why wouldn't they try to manipulate public opinio
not sure i'm following... are you saying gov't officials are near omniscient and use censorship to conduct reverse psychology psyops to have different (or opposite) effects vs ostensible reasons?
Oh no, they took Giuliani's bar's. How can pokerfan top this?
not sure i'm following... are you saying gov't officials are near omniscient and use censorship to conduct reverse psychology psyops to have different (or opposite) effects vs ostensible reasons?
Omniscient? No. However—and this is especially relevant when it comes to having access to social media data and AI technologies—I do think they can build detailed profiles of people and have a pretty good understanding of how different populations will react under given circumstances. I'm not arguing specifics because I don't know, but I definitely wouldn't discount the possibility. This kind of thing wouldn't be limited to censorship or the Streisand effect, but they were the topics of discussion.
In the UK the misinformation has to be intended to cause non-trivial harm
The legislation also criminialises such things as:
hose found guilty of the base offence of sharing an intimate image could be in prison for up to 6 months, or 2 years if it is proven the perpetrator also intended to cause distress, alarm or humiliation, or shared the image to obtain sexual gratification.
Cyberflashing on dating apps, AirDrop and other platforms will also result in perpetrators facing up to two years behind bars where it is done to gain sexual gratification, or to cause alarm, distress or humiliation.
Sending death threats or threatening serious harm online will also carry a jail sentence of up to five years under a new ‘threatening communications’ offence that will completely outlaw appalling threats made online that would be illegal if said in person.
A new false communications offence will bring internet trolls to justice by outlawing the intentional sending of false information that could cause ‘non-trivial psychological’ or physical harm to users online. This new offence will bolster the government’s strong commitment to clamping down on dangerous disinformation and election interference online.
In the wake of sickening content, often targeted at children, that encourages users to self-harm, a new offence will mean the individuals that post content encouraging or assisting serious self-harm could face up to 5 years behind bars.
These sorts of laws are new and will need time to develop. There are bound to be a few difficult edge cases where a lot will be made of the law going too far but this sort of legislation is very much needed imo.
As usual imo, the politics should be much more about the details of implemention rather than whether it should exist.
this sort of legislation is very much needed imo.
As usual imo, the politics should be much more about the details of implemention rather than whether it should exist.
why tho
theres already laws against revenge porn and flashing (if cyberflashing needs to technically be codified, so be it)
lumping "misinformation" in with those things is the same tactic as shouting mind virus
pretty sure we all know flashing when we see it, but info deemed "misinformation" by gov't can and has turned out to be correct
[quote=gov.uk]These new criminal offences will protect people from a wide range of abuse and harm online, including [...] sending fake news that aims to cause non-trivial physical or psychological harm.[/quote]
this is so vague and malleable that its guaranteed to be weaponized politically with great collateral damage
I think what I was talking about with the election day lie laws (which already exist) is that if we are going to have laws prohibiting certain speech they need to be very limited, measured, and specific. I don't like laws about "misinformation" because I don't think all sources of information should be taken seriously. When we talk about the damage of misinformation, it's generally not about whether the source is considered a trustworthy source-- it almost always isn't-- it's about whether people are taking the source too seriously.
Look at a guy like playbig that constantly posts random tiktoks and facebook posts. Back in the days, people would warn you not to believe everything you read on the internet. Now that same generation of people believes EVERYTHING they read on the internet. I think that we sufficiently have laws about libel and slander in the US that can be used to combat misinformation from sources that are supposed to be trusted (news sources), but the big problems is people trusting sources that were never meant to be trusted. I can't stop insane people from going on 4chan and believing some random schizo or troll.
Anyway this was the law I was referring to:
Voter Suppression
Intentionally deceiving qualified voters to prevent them from voting is voter suppression—and it is a federal crime.
There are many reputable places you can find your polling location and registration information, including eac.gov and usa.gov/how-to-vote. However, not all publicly available voting information is accurate, and some is deliberately designed to deceive you to keep you from voting.
Bad actors use various methods to spread disinformation about voting, such as social media platforms, texting, or peer-to-peer messaging applications on smartphones. They may provide misleading information about the time, manner, or place of voting. This can include inaccurate election dates or false claims about voting qualifications or methods, such as false information suggesting that one may vote by text, which is not allowed in any jurisdiction.
For general elections, Election Day is always the first Tuesday after November 1.
While there are some exceptions for military overseas using absentee ballots by email or fax, you cannot vote online or by text on Election Day.
Always consider the source of voting information. Ask yourself, “Can I trust this information?” Look for official notices from election offices and verify the information you found is accurate.
why tho
theres already laws against revenge porn and flashing (if cyberflashing needs to technically be codified, so be it)
lumping "misinformation" in with those things is the same tactic as shouting mind virus
pretty sure we all know flashing when we see it, but info deemed "misinformation" by gov't can and has turned out to be correct
this is so vague and malleable that its guaranteed to be weaponized politically with great collateral damage
Why? because protection those intentioanlly causing non-trivial harm is a large part of what good law is for.
It's a law. It's exactly as vague as it should be. It wont be perfect, nothing is but there will be very minimal problems of the sort you invisage. Precedent will do it's job very quickly.
Your point about mininfrmartion misses the point that non-trivial harm has to be intended. That's a very high bar.
In the UK the misinformation has to be intended to cause non-trivial harm
The legislation also criminialises such things as:
These sorts of laws are new and will need time to develop. There are bound to be a few difficult edge cases where a lot will be made of the law going too far but this sort of legislation is very much needed imo.
As usual imo, the politics should be mu
How do you avoid the politization of the implementation though? I always see a free speech limiter as ripe for abuse. Once the levers are there politically they will be pulled.
Thats really my only concern with addressing misinformation is that it always slippery slopes back to abuse
edit: seems smartdfs asked before me
we have a justice system
intention of non-trivial harm is a very high bar.
How do you avoid the politization of the implementation though? I always see a free speech limiter as ripe for abuse. Once the levers are there politically they will be pulled.
Thats really my only concern with addressing misinformation is that it always slippery slopes back to abuse
edit: seems smartdfs asked before me
do you believe that courts currently are incapable of defining defamation/slander/libel? if not, what do you think about additional definitions of misinformation intending to cause harm would be a problem?
We have hate speech laws so that's not a problem
Until it isn’t. Non trivial harm for an increasingly growing segment of people (including those in prestigious law schools) means “hate speech”. Precedent be damned.
I actually tend to agree that we shouldn't have laws against hate speech, but I think it's really poisonous for Democracy when people go around spreading lies about the election results. I don't have a good way of going about preventing that though other than robust norms.
