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 were never any robust norms. The difference is that before social media it was hard/expensive to spread misinformation very far.
That's why peoples position's on speech need to be revisted at the very least. It's a totally different world to the one where speech was expensive and easy to suppress - now the reverse is true.
There were never any robust norms. The difference is that before social media it was hard/expensive to spread misinformation very far.
That's why peoples position's on speech need to be revisted at the very least. It's a totally different world to the one where speech was expensive and easy to suppress - now the reverse is true.
There are breakdowns in order that can be patched up (top-down) and there are breakdowns in order of a completely different category.
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?
Aren't those fairly rare cases to win? I feel like I haven't heard about a high profile case of any of those in forever. People say wild ass **** on twitter constantly.
Musk called a hero a pedo
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
These are valid concerns, but I think we are all a bit older here and can remember before the internet.
We used to be fed misinformation and propaganda almost exclusively. Some older people are still as brainwashed as North Koreans.
Examples. Saddam was making nukes. He had ties to Islamist terrorists/was connected to 9/11. Dirty bombs. All of this, and virtually anything in the run up to Iraq was demonstrably false at the time.
All the other various pro war propaganda. Covering up the truth about Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, etc
UHC is expensive. (It actually costs half as much).
Same for other services, rights and guarantees that most other countries have.
Trickle down as a serious economic theory.
The cover up of the influence of money in pols. Presenting this silly story of DC as a high school debate club, rather than a place where policies are bought and sold.
Someone here posted an article in the NYT proporting to explain why the US is one of 7 countries without family leave, over the objections of 80% of voters.
I think that's it but I can't see it now. It was 13 paragraphs and made not one mention of lobbyists or campaign contributions. The conclusion was basically that our leaders are decent people and it's just a mystery why they vote like nihilistic ghouls.
The MSM also was happy to feed hysterical and unsubstantiated narratives about ebola coming to the US, children being abducted by strangers, killer bees, etc.
This goes on forever. But the real concern, on the part of those on power, isn't so much misinformation as the fact that most people no longer rely on the misinformation they put forward.
Yes, now that we can "do our own research" a good chunk of people wind up in q anon. I think a bigger driver of that is probably that they can form groups with like minded people online, where in the past they would be isolated.
On the whole, however, younger people are radically better informed because many are able to do their own research effectively. (It's not that hard to find the wiki articleon dirty bombs.)
It's not unlike how young people who are into music are vastly more sophisticated than we were. We kinda had to accept whatever was on radio/MTV (mostly crap). They are like, "hey, check out this awesome Japanese jazz fusion band from 40 years ago."
It still is a problem that people believe in Q or Alex Jones. However, I would view it as a social ill, like drug abuse (another issue where msm is mostly propaganda).
Those in power, of course, would address the issue as they do drugs. Remove civil liberties, more cops, more prisons until not a single conspiracy theory exists (so, never.)
In reality, it is probably just a fact of life. But it can be addressed with better mental hc, better education and general improvement in quality of life.
Shorter version. This has happened before.
Was the Catholic church opposed to people reading their own bibles because some would misinterpret stuff, or because some would go, "hey, there's nothing in here about buying indulgences?"
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.
can't say i'm familiar with uk law, but in the u.s. "pass a vague law and let the courts sort things outs" rarely ends well
It's a totally different world to the one where speech was expensive and easy to suppress - now the reverse is true.
i'm getting "free speech is cool as long as it's easy to suppress" vibes
misinformation continually talked about like it's a mind virus that when released into the wild just spreads ferociously against will of the people
social media is not some new lethal pathogen. just public convos of what used to be private convos when people were socially connected irl and got their dopamine fix via live human conversation rather than twitter likes. that disparate and edge case views emerge when a billion people are participating in a conversation does not constitute a novel threat to humanity
Shorter version. This has happened before.
Was the Catholic church opposed to people reading their own bibles because some would misinterpret stuff, or because some would go, "hey, there's nothing in here about buying indulgences?"
It’s the Tower of Babel. Those in power want everyone else to work together on the one collective tower:
“We’re so close, I can almost see heaven from here! If we can just get everyone on the same page..”
If people start building other towers, that’s a threat to the original.
Haha. Note that I stipulated young people who are into music.
Mainstream pop is worse than ever. I think that's partly cuz smarter kids, or at least kids who are serious about music are off exploring galaxies of music through time and from around the world. So the lowest common denominator for top 40 is lower.
Back in my day, it was a big and often expensive project to explore stuff like jazz, old country, punk etc. Brazilian or Japanese music? Fuggitaboutit!
Today, not only can the hear it all, they can be guided by wiki, forums, sm.
This increased freedom and learning is mostly a good thing, in music, politics, history, religion, etc. There is a downside, as usual. But it's good.
The powerful always have some boogy man to scare us into giving them more power over us. It was communism, then it was naughty lyrics, then it was drug dealers, then it was terrorism, now it's "misinformation."
I'm not trying to be an old fogey, and I'm sure there are plenty of kids who are into cool music and understand it well, but streaming has completely changed the listening experience. Albums were carefully sequenced and taking them in a whole was a big part of it. There was even a shift of how albums were produced when they went from LP to CD since sides A and B no longer came into play. Now everything exists in this giant sea where algorithms recommend artists, songs are added to playlists, artists are put on shuffle and songs get interrupted by ads. The music industry promotes certain artists just as much now as it did in MTV's heyday, but there are less of them, and when it comes to algorithms, it limits you to your own world, whereas back in the day you'd be exposed to the same things as your peers and find your own way.
As for being limited to what was on MTV and radio, that just isn't true. While I did listen to a lot of stuff that was on the radio and MTV, by the mid 90s, I'd guess more than half the stuff I was listening to didn't get airplay or its time in the spotlight had passed. It wasn't uncommon. My generation and those that came before would discover new artists from sifting through albums at record stores, listening to our parents' old records, word of mouth, record label catalogs, college radio, reading the "We'd like to thank..." section in liner notes, etc. When Green Day got big, it wasn't long before I knew about the bands from the scene they came out of and the groups that influenced them. The metal heads I know could probably list off a hundred groups in that genre alone. There was so much to discover, and if someone was into music, then they were into music. Ah, I could go on forever about this.
The thing that bothers me about the music the kids listen to today is why is it so bleedin
tuneful?
This increased freedom and learning is mostly a good thing, in music, politics, history, religion, etc. There is a downside, as usual. But it's good.
Having more information at your fingertips doesn't necessarily mean increased freedom and learning. In fact, more often than not, I would argue it has the opposite effect.
Since we're on the topic of music and in a free speech thread...
Haha. We had this thing called History Day which was like a science fair for history. My group got to the state finals with a project on censorship of pop music. Coincidentally one of my teammates is now a rock star.
Anyway, the problem with those labels back then was that chains like Wal mart wouldn't carry them. That meant 1) people in rural areas couldn't easily buy them 2) there was a big financial pressure to self censor.
Having more information at your fingertips doesn't necessarily mean increased freedom and learning. In fact, more often than not, I would argue it has the opposite effect.
Interesting point in your other post about the way we listen to music. Eric Johnson said something similar about being absorbed by an album vs music as pleasant background.
On the quoted point, I'd say now more than ever it's what you make of it. And as I suggested, it might be polarized between people who passively consume the worst crap ever (in many areas) and people who really make the most of our new opportunities.
Some of my areas:
Baseball. Many will know, the understanding of the game is better because Brad Pitt invented moneyball.
But, if you seek it out, there is tons of really high quality stuff. ESPN is probably the dumbest it's ever been. But there are great, and popular podcasts and channels where smart, usually younger guys do fascinating deep dives. Stuff like this was non existent before, except maybe some niche books.
Music: already described, but many of my favorite pieces, I'd have had a zero % chance of hearing before. I got into underground punk and metal too (with much work and expense). But Dutch minimalist composer Simeon Ten Holt? Lol no.
Also, free lessons on any instrument online. Young youtubers like Adam Neely delve into history and theory and have millions of viewers. And old ones like Rick Beato.
Recently really been into religion. Entire college courses are free. Top scholars like Bart Ehrman do pods. All this info has helped me better select books to read.
History: more high quality docs than I could ever watch. Free college. Wonderful pods.
And so on. This is my subjtive experience, but it's a fact that people like Tom Holland, or Beato, or Ehrman reach huge audiences, and this kind of stuff either didn't exist in the past or was limited to the occasional PBS show.
At least in the US. I know it was much better in the UK. And now, I can listen to In Our Time or watch BBC docs any time I want.
You make some good points, and I agree that in some cases the extra options are nice to have. I enjoy watching lectures, seeking out new authors, etc. I just believe that the negatives outweigh the positives when it comes to music, for both the artist and the listener.
Interesting point in your other post about the way we listen to music. Eric Johnson said something similar about being absorbed by an album vs music as pleasant background.
Yes, and the full album thing is central to one of the points I was trying to make. He didn't say being absorbed by a song vs music as a pleasant background. An album doesn't have to be concept album for that to be important, but it emphasizes the significance. An obvious example would be something like the Who's Tommy, but there are plenty more. If you got into underground punk, maybe you're familiar with Screeching Weasel. Anthem for a New Tomorrow isn't a flawless concept album, but it does develop and tells a linear story. That isn't even taking album art—which is now effectively nonexistent—into consideration. The guy looking at the faded American flag through the red and blue 3D glasses adds context, along with some of the liner notes. The meaning is lost and never found if someone likes one or two songs and doesn't listen to the rest.
I'm sure there is. I was parodying the oldies when i was young who complained that the music today doesn't have a tune.
Cool. I thought you were satirizing me. I'd have been fine with that but wanted to clarify my opinion about those darn kids with their ripped jeans and alternative rock and roll.
I’d happily exchange some of the light tunes for a lot more mood.
I'm pretty sure this stuff cost Gore the election.
If you weren't in those scenes, you probably don't realize how deeply hated Tipper was. The metal magazines had letters to the editor all the time, in which people said they'd never vote Gore.
Florida has a huge metal scene. It's where 2 live crew were from.
How could there not be at least 1,000 people in Florida who refused to vote Gore cuz his wife was the face the movement to censor their music?
There were never any robust norms. The difference is that before social media it was hard/expensive to spread misinformation very far.
That's why peoples position's on speech need to be revisted at the very least. It's a totally different world to the one where speech was expensive and easy to suppress - now the reverse is true.
This thinking is precisely inverse to what the real assessment should be.
In the USA, there have always been norms when it comes to Freedoms to decent and it's not been until recently that free speech has been attacked with such vigor. the effects of electronic social media are making it easier to attack those Freedoms and not the other way around that antagonists would have you falsely believe.
It's not because of electronic social media that free speech needs to be revisted, it's because of electronic social media that free speech needs to be protected with more vigor.
It IS a different world... and therefore we need to be MORE vigilant.
Article 1 is first because it should never be breached or augmented... and we have Article 2 in order to ensure that Article 1 remains intact.
