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?
Maybe so, but if you want freedom you have to accept some bad stuff happening...
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...
I put a very high value on the sovereignty of the individual and agree that we have to accept some bad stuff happening. Those who think in a utopian manner are not only kidding themselves but don't realize that a lot of their proposals would lead to more suffering. I probably fall into the second category myself. The question is where to draw the line. There is no perfect political ideology. People are complicated—both individually and collectively— so there never will be one; too many moving parts. However, lines still have to be drawn for a functioning society. How do you balance morality and utility? Freedom and restriction? At a certain point, most logical arguments for this drug law or that rating system will fail. The same goes for speech.
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 acc
I get it. Peter Thiel can buy influence online and try to spread his message, often with dishonest means. That is bad.
What I'm trying to tell you is that, before the www, this was the majority of what we consumed. Iraq, The War on drugs and much else were promoted by misinformation and propaganda to enrich people like Thiel, and there was little else available. Those 2 things alone were devastating to this country and killed and maimed millions abroad. All based on Alex Jones level lies.
It's actually much better now because Thiel and gov/corporate propaganda have a far lower share of the discourse and more accurate info and more honest commentary is widely available.
Look at something as simple as nutrition, where government guidelines were shaped by lobbyists and PR firms even got corporate propaganda into school text books.
Now we get much better info, though.
Yes, there are crazies and scammers. But it's better than before.
Peter Thiel's influence is dwarfed by the fact that we can get pretty good info from places like Wikipedia, or interacting directly with individuals.
Some people will be fooled or sort the info badly, as has always been the case. Lyndon LaRouche and Coast to Coast (a massive conspiracy/alien/big foot radio show) had their day too. This is always a price of free speech.
The idea behind free speech is every one has their say, we hear all the ideas and we collectively come closer to the truth than would an authority figure. The conditions for that are stronger than, maybe, ever.
Are our elites in a satanic cabal of child molesters?
No. Though the seeds of Q certainly include MSM working up hysteria about child abduction.
However, it is true that elites could commit about all the sex crimes they wanted under the old system. Including trafficking minors (Epstein).
Under the old system Bill Clinton, Trump and Weinstein had carte Blanche. Even when they came forward, Bill's victims were attacked, it was swept under the rug and he can still speak at the DNC.
Today, Bill would be forced to drop out, and maybe even prosecuted, largely because it is harder to silence victims and control the narrative. Harvey was finally brought to justice and Trump faced at least some justice.
So maybe there can be some adjustments to address nefarious influence online, but on the whole this is an area where things have gotten much better. And THAT is why elites ate suddenly worried about "misinformation" after spending their lives dispensing it.
You also still have the problem of the fact that government intervention is unlikely to go as hoped. Do you want the gov cracking down on "misinformation" if Trump is in office?
I get it. Peter Thiel can buy influence online and try to spread his message, often with dishonest means. That is bad.
What I'm trying to tell you is that, before the www, this was the majority of what we consumed. Iraq, The War on drugs and much else were promoted by misinformation and propaganda to enrich people like Thiel, and there was little else available. Those 2 things alone were devastating to this country and killed and maimed millions abroad. All based on Alex Jones level lies.
It'
Yes, absolutely, the internet is really important, and we need to protect free speech on the internet. I'm not attempting to imply otherwise. I always think that when we impose restrictions on speech, even ones about just disclosing where the speech is coming from, we need to be very careful not to overstep and create more harm than good.
I do want to push back a little bit though, because I'm certainly not implying that newspapers and traditional television media always get things right. Rather, the disclosures behind where the stories are coming from seem to be a lot more regulated, and they are more accountable because when they get stuff wrong, they have to show their face on TV the next day. Oftentimes they will have to do retractions in order to avoid being sued. The average twitter account doing politics can just move on and ignore that they were completely wrong.
Maybe the solution isn't some kind of disclosure law, but that people actually demand accountability out of their fellow internet user (not canceling but intellectual accountability). I just see that the incentives are all wrong for that, and actually the people most willing to lie and be deceitful are the ones that have the most likelihood of success.
Look at something as simple as nutrition, where government guidelines were shaped by lobbyists and PR firms even got corporate propaganda into school text books.
Now we get much better info, though.
Yes, there are crazies and scammers. But it's better than before.
Peter Thiel's influence is dwarfed by the fact that we can get pretty good info from places like Wikipedia, or interacting directly with individuals.
Some people will be fooled or sort the info badly, as has always been the case. Lyndon LaRouche and Coast to Coast (a massive conspiracy/alien/big foot radio show) had their day too. This is always a price of free speech.
The idea behind free speech is every one has their say, we hear all the ideas and we collectively come closer to the truth than would an authority figure. The conditions for that are stronger than, maybe, ever.
I think there's a bit of conflation here. Our quality of information available is probably better than it has ever been, this is true. And yes, much of that improvement can be directly attributable to new technologies like the internet, computers, AI, programming, developments in science, medicine, etc. And much of this information is free and available for people to consume so technically people have a much higher ceiling of knowledge than at any point in human history.
However, with the democratization of that information comes new types of issues that can't be compared to the past. In the past, people had this heuristic that whatever sources of information that came from the news, government experts, academics, scientists, was generally reliable. We had mass waves of immunization despite early periods of skepticism because people generally trusted the institutional sources. That's for better or for worse, and you have done a good job at showing the failings of those institutions. Probably the biggest one in my lifetime was the Iraq war, which was just a horrible and senseless war that we were lied into.
But we can't let the Iraq war blind us to the problems of new media. I see a lot of people that get a false sense of security because instead of watching MSNBC/CNN and reading the New York Times/WaPo/Wall Street Journal, they watch Jimmy Dore or the Tim Pool Show or other independent media sources. Or they get all their info from random accounts and memes on twitter. Oftentimes they would have been better off going the mainstream media route than where they ultimately get their information from. I say this as someone who almost exclusively watches independent media for commentary and gets news from news aggregate websites.
We have to understand that when we talk about those traditional sources, we're not talking about things that are fully laissez faire either. They already have regulations that don't seem to stifle free speech. So the idea that we need to automatically assume that no regulation whatsoever is possible or else it's going to turn into the Ministry of Truth is not necessarily correct. It might be that this is the right way to go, but I'm not sure.
I mean even ideas like reforming the way that platforms deal with content moderation might be something that HELPS internet news and free speech by making sure they don't have to be so worried about arbitrary and capricious bans. But technically we are then stifling the PLATFORM'S free speech by compelling them to do something that is purely a business transaction.
Are our elites in a satanic cabal of child molesters?
No. Though the seeds of Q certainly include MSM working up hysteria about child abduction.
However, it is true that elites could commit about all the sex crimes they wanted under the old system. Including trafficking minors (Epstein).
Under the old system Bill Clinton, Trump and Weinstein had carte Blanche. Even when they came forward, Bill's victims were attacked, it was swept under the rug and he can still speak at the DNC.
Today, Bill would be forced to drop out, and maybe even prosecuted, largely because it is harder to silence victims and control the narrative. Harvey was finally brought to justice and Trump faced at least some justice.
I mean the thing is that a lot of the reporting surrounding these cases didn't come from new media but rather traditional media. The media makes a lot of mistakes, and there are certainly powerful men that abuse their positions of power. I'm not going to comment on the details of every single sexual allegation because my take is and has always been I have to look at the specific instances rather than make broad generalizations. I don't believe every salacious story about Clinton or Trump for that matter.
So maybe there can be some adjustments to address nefarious influence online, but on the whole this is an area where things have gotten much better. And THAT is why elites ate suddenly worried about "misinformation" after spending their lives dispensing it.
Different elites have different goals. Elites are the ones that covered up the effects of smoking on human health, and elites are the ones that exposed the effects of smoking on human health. I think people are worried about disinformation and the Democratic party have tried to make it a political issue with mixed results. Regardless of good or bad intentions, media literacy and being able to parse out good info from bad is always a really important concern, and I'm open to ways we can improve the problems I see in new media. That doesn't necessarily have to be government action, as I think you are pointing out, and may just be a long term public education project.
You also still have the problem of the fact that government intervention is unlikely to go as hoped. Do you want the gov cracking down on "misinformation" if Trump is in office?
I think largely I have said I'm not someone who thinks that it's feasible to counter misinformation. Maybe by forming some kind of independent agency like the CBO. But maybe the best way is to just have congress use their powers of investigation to hold fact finding hearings and let the facts speak for themselves.
Just on the point of Bill Clinton, the case that he beat and forcibly raped Juanita Broderick is one of the strongest cases among such allegations.
Witnesses placed both at the scene, saw her injuries and she told several people of the rape when it happened.
She was reluctant to come forward for obvious reasons, but did so later.
I started dropping these off discreetly at news stands down in the subway and at the port authority, and around Bryant park. If anyones interested in having one emailed so you can make copies just let me know as well as how many hours you can volunteer per day.
Neat
Conservatives trying to act like hippies ~50yrs ago and thinking they're ahead of the ball instead of decades behind. Kinda like the recent off-grid converts etc. thinking they're fighting the system. The details start to get pretty fuzzy though when you start asking how rightwing philosophy/policy is going to do anything about it.
Conservatives trying to act like hippies ~50yrs ago and thinking they're ahead of the ball instead of decades behind. Kinda like the recent off-grid converts etc. thinking they're fighting the system. The details start to get pretty fuzzy though when you start asking how rightwing philosophy/policy is going to do anything about it.
Typical Wet work post. Nothing we haven't seen hundreds of times.
You know it's true.
I started dropping these off discreetly at news stands down in the subway and at the port authority, and around Bryant park. If anyones interested in having one emailed so you can make copies just let me know as well as how many hours you can volunteer per day.
Any particular reason you are singling out British newspapers?
Lol so he's lying about even that?
I assumed everyone knew he was FOS and didn't bother saying anything when he posted it. He is obviously in the US and those are obviously not newspapers that are in circulation in NYC as he claimed.
Actually, having quickly googled it I see that although they are UK newspapers the Sun and Daily star are in fact in circulation in the US. And who knows, I suppose that there is an outside chance that the Sun has revived the Maddie story recently. So who knows. I'd still definitely bet on BS.
Lt. Columbo really cracked the case on this one.
Actually, having quickly googled it I see that although they are UK newspapers the Sun and Daily star are in fact in circulation in the US. And who knows, I suppose that there is an outside chance that the Sun has revived the Maddie story recently. So who knows. I'd still definitely bet on BS.
I think the sun ran a story like this in the last few weeks.
MADDIE VOW Madeleine McCann update as cops say secret witnesses mean suspect Christian Brueckner WILL still be charged
Until now a drifter and an ex-cell mate appeared to be the only witnesses, both alleging Brueckner confessed to them
Rob Pattinson, Senior District Reporter
Published: 22:00, 8 Oct 2024Updated: 6:54, 9 Oct 2024
I suspect they run stories most months. No idea if it's the one in his post or not.
A close look appears to have an offer of the sun free for a month in Ju.. Suggests it's not that recent. But maybe it JUst or .. rather than JUne or JUly
Case closed. it's the front page from the 9th October 2024
It's "just 99p"
You can find it here if you're sad like me
This is all very well, but he still hasn't explained why he's singling out Rupert Murdoch's Sun for his attack.
Case closed. it's the front page from the 9th October 2024
It's "just 99p"
You can find it here if you're sad like me
Well done. Does the US version have the same front page? I mean I imagine they'd at least change the price to 99c or whatever. I just find it hard to believe that is a picture of a newspaper stand anywhere in the US.
