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?
Article? You mean amendment 1 & 2?
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 ele
Both of you misunderstood what I meant. I wasn't talking about norms surrounding the first amendment, I was talking about norms surrounding accepting the Democratic result.
There were definitely times in American history where the results were questioned, and a few people that questioned election results in the media, but the overwhelming majority of politicians since the civil war have respected election results and not complained. Even Al Gore, who had a pretty good case that he might have actually won the election and had a case that could have determined the outcome of the election make it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost 5-4, immediately accepted the results of the election.
Free speech works when we have institutional buy-in. When so many people are at odds with each other on the institutions we have and everyone seems to think they are being victimized by the powers that be, that's when people feel justified in saying whatever they want to in order to win, up to and including lies.
And again for MSchu18, why was it that in the first place that these were AMENDMENTS and not written into the constitution from the outset? It's because the founding fathers were more focused on the structure of the government than they were on protecting individual freedoms. The Bill of Rights was a compromise in order to get the constitution ratified. It has always been a tenuous relationship that we have had in this country with what people are interested in. Some people were scared of government tyranny from the federal government (anti-federalists) and some people were worried that a weak central government would not be enough to survive in a world full of danger (federalists).
When people worry about misinformation spreading on public platforms, I think chezlaw is absolutely correct that with new forms of communication brings new issues to deal with. Look at the Section 230 protections afforded to platforms. These are protections that conservatives wanted to REMOVE that would have made the types of free speech on platforms you're talking about impossible. And in fact these protections are not enshrined in the constitution and could quite easily be overturned. So these things you're talking about have nothing to do with the first amendment since these are private companies we're talking about.
There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says that people have the right to use private platforms to spread misinformation or that the government has to protect them from liability. The telecommunications infrastructure that we're talking about are already highly regulated. We WANT there to be freedom of communication on these platforms because we have that kind of principle, but there are plenty of things that I think happen here that need to be looked at more closely. When people are getting paid for speech like in an ad or in an arrangement with a foreign entity, we absolutely have a public interest in knowing these things. I think the Founding Fathers you appeal to absolutely would have agreed. It's one thing to ban certain thoughts, it's quite another to force someone else to facilitate the transmission of these thoughts.
It's one thing to ban certain thoughts, it's quite another to force someone else to facilitate the transmission of these thoughts.
This is where it gets tricky. Given that the average individuals voice carries the most weight on social media these days, censoring them on that medium is effectively quashing their speech in favor of accepted speech, and it gives an incredible amount of power to those who make the decisions about what kind of speech to ban.
An ideal situation, I think, would be widely-used platform where people are allowed to say whatever they want within the bounds of the law and restrictions that only relate to things like spamming, bots, etc.; set up in a way like early Facebook where you only see your friends/what you follow, and allow users to block others and forum moderators to restrict whatever they want.
-The highest level truths do not need enforcement. They will win (through persuasion) over a long enough timeline.
-Truths that need enforcement are not the highest level truths.
-People are justified in having low trust in institutions
find myself both understanding and agreeing with craig's last few posts, so plan on taking preventative measures and checking myself in
-The highest level truths do not need enforcement. They will win (through persuasion) over a long enough timeline.
-Truths that need enforcement are not the highest level truths.
How are you defining “highest level truths”? Because certainly on the low level of truth we can’t expect the truth to win out over lies. That’s why we have libel and slander laws. Turns out lies are pervasive.
-People are justified in having low trust in institutions
No, people CAN be justified in having low trust in institutions. Oftentimes their stated reasons are not logically justified at all.
I'm fine with certain measures like exposing paid content or maybe breaking up the algos that create echo chambers. However, I don't see that as a restriction of free speech.
Naturally, our own political parties already bribe influencers to spread propaganda to followers.
The Harris campaign said it did not directly pay influencers for content. But other Democratic groups do pay for posts, typically providing talking points or other guidelines. Depending on the reach of the creator, payments can be as little as $50 or, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars.
This gets to a fundamental reason free speech is good. While bad stuff happens sometimes with freedom, you have to ask if the authorities have the capacity or will to do a better job than the marketplace.
Personally, I see no evidence that people like the Clintons, Trump, GW, Pelosi, Biden, Mitch etc. Would do a good Jo
Job of determining what the truth is and controlling the discourse.
Here is another example of unsubstantiated pseudoscience, promoted by Hillary, one of the people who wants to restrict speech.
She champions the absurd "super predator" theory here. Unlike when your uncle talks about lizard people at TG, this misinformation was used to destroy millions off lives and squander billions.
(Jesus, what an evil person.)
Wiki:
The superpredator or super-predator refers to a myth[1][2][3] that became popular in the 1990s in the United States, which posited that a small but significant and increasing population of impulsive (often urban) youth were willing to commit violent crimes without remorse.[4][5] A now-debunked criminological theory, created by criminologist and political scientist John J. DiIulio Jr.,[6][7] alleged that superpredators were a growing phenomenon and predicted a large increase in youth crime and violence as a result.[8][9] The idea of superpredators contributed to a moral panic about juvenile crime.[10][11] Proponents warned of "a blood bath of violence" or "Lord of the Flies on a massive scale".[5][12] American lawmakers seized on this idea, and implemented tough-on-crime legislation for juvenile offenders across the country, including life without parole sentences.[4]
The theory was criticized when crime significantly decreased in the following years.[8][
Yeah, let's let people who believe in dirty bombs, trickle down economic, welfare queens, super predators and Haitan pet eaters protect us from misinformation.
Look, this might be true, and I can grant it for the sake of argument. The problem is that it doesn't preclude a long-term failure. Maybe the non-truth that the best way to organize international politics is by nationalism gains popularity over some temporary period of time, and if we run it out to its conclusion then it will eventually fail because of internal contradictions. Even if that is the case, the cost of failure could be the ending of organized society in a nuclear catastrophe.
I'm not convinced that "truth wins out in the end" but maybe that's just the ex-Marxist in me talking. Marx was well aware, as a historian, that societies can revert, that progress is not guaranteed. So he advocated that any philosopher should also be involved politically, else philosophy without practice is worthless. I'm of the same mind that I don't think teleology actually exists, except the teleology of how we ought to act once we understand our own principles (which are not inherent).
Look, this might be true, and I can grant it for the sake of argument. The problem is that it doesn't preclude a long-term failure. Maybe the non-truth that the best way to organize international politics is by nationalism gains popularity over some temporary period of time, and if we run it out to its conclusion then it will eventually fail because of internal contradictions. Even if that is the case, the cost of failure could be the ending of organized society in a nuclear catastrophe.
I'm not
A tale as old as time. I agree with everything but the last two sentences. To quote acclaimed songwriter Billy Joel:
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
But when we are gone
It will still burn on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on
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?
The titans of capitalism are nothing if not good at marketing&messaging 😀 In a room otherwise filled with conservatives and also entirely funded by them--they stuck the 1 D originally on board out in front. Meanwhile most of the people focusing all of that hatred on that 1 person had no idea at all about the other parts 😀
Look, this might be true, and I can grant it for the sake of argument. The problem is that it doesn't preclude a long-term failure. Maybe the non-truth that the best way to organize international politics is by nationalism gains popularity over some temporary period of time, and if we run it out to its conclusion then it will eventually fail because of internal contradictions. Even if that is the case, the cost of failure could be the ending of organized society in a nuclear catastrophe.
I'm not
My understanding is the only chance we have for truth to win in the end is if we believe it will and act as if. Still, it won’t just happen; we have to pursue it, which involves a level of doubt.
The idea that we need to censor misinformation (or enforce a narrative) seems to be the dividing line of whether or not you believe in humanity’s ability to attain the highest truth.
*The highest truth can be thought of as the universally agreed upon good life.
My understanding is the only chance we have for truth to win in the end is if we believe it will and act as if. Still, it won’t just happen; we have to pursue it, which involves a level of doubt.
The idea that we need to censor misinformation (or enforce a narrative) seems to be the dividing line of whether or not you believe in humanity’s ability to attain the highest truth.
*The highest truth can be thought of as the universally agreed upon good life.
I’m curious what Crossnerd thinks about this idea..
My understanding is the only chance we have for truth to win in the end is if we believe it will and act as if. Still, it won’t just happen; we have to pursue it, which involves a level of doubt.
The idea that we need to censor misinformation (or enforce a narrative) seems to be the dividing line of whether or not you believe in humanity’s ability to attain the highest truth.
*The highest truth can be thought of as the universally agreed upon good life.
If we’re talking about discussions of normativity, I’m 100% on board with being free speech absolutist about what we ought to do, so long as what we’re discussing doesn’t lend itself to being an incitement to commit a specific crime. I’m not sure anyone is actually on board with every single thing being open to lies. Most people generally agree that we shouldn’t let companies make fallacious representations on the efficacy or safety of their products, for instance, if they are doing so in a knowing fashion or in a fashion where they should know.
That’s just one example of where the immediate harm is so high that we don’t allow fabrications. And then going on top of that, we don’t allow fabrications of studies that prove the safety of efficacy of a product. And then within society there might be social consequences for lies even if they aren’t illegal technically, which probably speaks to the struggle you are talking about
The only reason I bring up this nuance is because a lot of times it gets lost in this discussion that different categories of speech can and should be treated differently. The thing about misinformation and disinformation that makes it hard to set up laws about it is that though they don’t have to deal with normativity, they do have to deal with a question of debate that we ought to want to happen in society. We want people to be looking closely at certain issues in society and having robust conversations about what the facts are. It’s hard to have an arbiter of truth within society because even if we can agree on truth we might not agree on norms, and truth and norms oftentimes intersect in questions of misinformation and disinformation.
Still I think having carveouts for certain types of misinformation like for instance what day election day is might be feasible, but it has to be strictly tailored and targeted in scope, with a tendency to lead to harm. So I can agree with a principle of not banning any normative position like not banning nazism without agreeing that we never have an interest to ban or have torts relating to certain very narrow types of misinfo or disinfo.
Definitely nothing related to skepticism or conspiracy unless it comes from a business, commercial enterprise, or individual and rises to the level of slander/libel, as in the case of Alex Jones.
But even in those cases civil defendants have protections.
I am 100% into free speech, even in the current modern social media world, as long as:
1 - Personal accounts are held by real persons, following rules similar to KYC I assume we all follow when registering into a poker site or opening a bank account. Your account will always show your real name in anything you post.
2 - One personal account per person (duuh?)
3 - You can't delete anything you post. You can alter but what you posted previously will always be visible.
This would ensure accountability, and would probably make people a bit more responsible/tame on the internet. Closer to irl than what we do have currently.
Anonymity is an important part of free speech. It's probably more important than ever, because there are many issues where people are afraid to speak out publicly. Even something as minor as commenting on Pit Bulls can lead to a lot of harassment.
The level of authority needed to implement all that would be pretty crazy. Call me a libertarian, but I don't want federal law enforcement at my door because I have 2 Facebook accounts.
Anonymity is an important part of free speech. It's probably more important than ever, because there are many issues where people are afraid to speak out publicly. Even something as minor as commenting on Pit Bulls can lead to a lot of harassment.
The level of authority needed to implement all that would be pretty crazy. Call me a libertarian, but I don't want federal law enforcement at my door because I have 2 Facebook accounts.
I think there’s a threshold after which there is an interest in unmasking accounts. It’s a little disturbing there’s a guy with 3 million followers on X that is completely anonymous and is influencing probably half of America. This guy could be from the Kremlin or he could be a regular joe, nobody knows
Ok ok the issue is complicated. I just posted a defense about my idea and did something I said people shouldn't be able to do: deleted it. Because I thought about some exceptions where I 100% agree anonymity is important. I'm a hypocrite LOL.
Anyway, I keep that rights shouldn't exist without responsibilities.
Cheers
Haha I was thinking more in terms of the platforms being coerced into enforcing this rule, than law enforcement knocking at your door because you made another X account using a fake name.
Hum, you shouldn't be able to write a completely false, defamatory article about me, without putting your actual name on the line. On social media. On a magazine. Etc. Or post it on social media and delete it 1 hour later after people have already seen it and the damage was done.
Rights should come with rules and
Should authors be allowed to publish books under pseudonyms? Do you think people self-censor for fear of being witch-hunted? What if there's a gay man who hasn't come out to his family and wants to interact with an online community and ask for advice? I think there are ways for platforms to regulate illegal content and hold users accountable for breaking the law. I'm not opposed to there being platforms where you have to use your real name, but there should also be ones that allow anonymity.
Should authors be allowed to publish books under pseudonyms? Do you think people self-censor for fear of being witch-hunted? What if there's a gay man who hasn't come out to his family and wants to interact with an online community and ask for advice? I think there are ways for platforms to regulate illegal content and hold users accountable for breaking the law. I'm not opposed to there being platforms where you have to use your real name, but there should also be ones that allow anonymity.
Thanks for quoting my post, I want it to be shown here. Yes, this is another example of a situation where my logic fails. Maybe a solution would be that yes, you can hide your name when posting things, especially sensitive ones, but the platform should still have your real world data, for the cases where you abuse your right. So, for example, if you write lies and publicly humiliate me on social media using a pseudonym, I can still sue you.
Ok ok the issue is complicated. I just posted a defense about my idea and did something I said people shouldn't be able to do: deleted it. Because I thought about some exceptions where I 100% agree anonymity is important. I'm a hypocrite LOL.
Anyway, I keep that rights shouldn't exist without responsibilities.
Cheers
I think you made a good analogy with poker sites though.
Any regulations should target business practices. For example, there could be a threshold of allowable bots, after which you are fined. (The reason some should be allowed is that it's impossible to stop all).
A far bigger problem than political speech imo is the damage SM does to young people. Not sure what solutions there are, but I'm open to discussion.
No regulations on individual speech, outside of slander and threats and other stuff that already exists.
Unfortunately, FB and Twitter have enough money to prevent this fro. happening and any laws passed will be designed to do things like prevent criticism of foreign policy.
Should authors be allowed to publish books under pseudonyms? Do you think people self-censor for fear of being witch-hunted?
To the first one: I would first say no, but I fail to see how it wouldn't be possible to find who is the author and hold him accountable if he publishes a book on, let's say, how the government of my country should be overthrown and it should be replaced by nazi leaders (this is a criminal offense here in my country btw). So, yes. Second: Yes, they do. Another thing I should reflect and consider before updating my opinion on this topic.
To the first one: I would first say no, but I fail to see how it wouldn't be possible to find who is the author and hold him accountable if he publishes a book on, let's say, how the government of my country should be overthrown and it should be replaced by nazi leaders (this is a criminal offense here in my country btw). So, yes.
Yeah, publishers would have that information, and if it was self-published, then the manufacturer or distributor would have it and may also be liable for promoting illegal materials. But a lot of famous books were written under pseudonyms. In some cases, it's a creative choice, and there are other instances where, for example, the author doesn't want their name attached with their other work. Let's say someone who is known for writing books aimed at kids but then wants to release an erotic thriller.
I think there’s a threshold after which there is an interest in unmasking accounts. It’s a little disturbing there’s a guy with 3 million followers on X that is completely anonymous and is influencing probably half of America. This guy could be from the Kremlin or he could be a regular joe, nobody knows
Maybe so, but if you want freedom you have to accept some bad stuff happening.
If you know the traditional arguments for free speech, some Russian guy spouting propaganda really isn't a big problem. He can put forward his positions and they will be judged like any others. Maybe he even makes some good points.
At some point, he will become so famous that people will either discover who he is or be aware that he is carefully hiding his identity.
I'd bet that like, Mill, would have no real problem with this happening, even if it is an imperfection.
There are countless cases where we accept some bad stuff to have freedom. Alcohol, cars that can exceed the speed limit, fast food, morally questionable entertainment...
Again, someone like Hillary or a Bush type is not worried about people believing in Q., imo. They are worried because if the Iraq war happened now, it would meet fierce resistance because we no longer live in a world where 90% of people are like "well, the TV said Saddam is going to nuke New York so I guess it's true."
Maybe so, but if you want freedom you have to accept some bad stuff happening.
If you know the traditional arguments for free speech, some Russian guy spouting propaganda really isn't a big problem. He can put forward his positions and they will be judged like any others. Maybe he even makes some good points.
At some point, he will become so famous that people will either discover who he is or be aware that he is carefully hiding his identity.
I'd bet that like, Mill, would have no real problem
Look I’m not talking about the average account with 100 followers or something screaming into the void. Let’s try to parse out this issue a little bit. Do you think it’s bad that political ads have to disclose who paid for the ad? If not, it seems a little weird that something that can be way more valuable than a political ad has no requirement for disclosure despite the fact that we have no idea who this person is or what their funding sources are.
It’s really disturbing for instance that an account can pop up last year seemingly out of nowhere get 500k followers and then accuse the current VP nominee for the Dems of being a pedophile rapist, and we have absolutely no idea who this guy is or if he’s even from this country. That’s just crazy to me that people from around the world who we don’t know and may even be signal boosted by an American billionaire can just spew random garbage into our political system with no accountability. That’s wiiiiild.
