6 ms·

Does free speech have the power to corrupt other minds at a level that that free speech should instead be controlled? I get the general sense that a lot more pe

Does free speech have the power to corrupt other minds at a level that that free speech should instead be controlled? I get the general sense that a lot more people answer "Yes" to that question than has been historically true (at least, post-1776 American true).

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
devalier 11y ago
Does free speech have the power to corrupt other minds at a level that that free speech should instead be controlled? Yes. And ironically, the one who convinced me of that point is Yarvin/Moldbug. (He actually argued, partly tongue-and-cheek, that Egypt should shut off its internet from the world. And while this sounds outrageous and terrible, remember that he was right about the revolutions in the Arab world, and virtually everyone in the tech world who cheered on the revolutions were wrong). I think it is fine that some speech is considered beyond the pale. Some speech is in fact dangerous. Power comes from the barrel of the gun -- but speech is used to organize the gun holders. Speech tells the people with the guns who the bad guys are. My problem is that the wrong people are controlling speech, and for the wrong reasons. De-platforming is being instigated via a heckler's veto -- the biggest cry-bullies try to dictate what is acceptable. I'd rather have speech controlled by an official council selected by a random lottery of citizens, than by self-appointed censors. And also I don't agree with banning Yarvin/Moldbug in particular. I have found Yarvin/Moldbug to be an amazingly insightful and interesting blogger. The history and sources he has cited has greatly enhanced my understanding of the world. Sometimes he can be abrasive, hyperbolic or a troll, but overall I am better off for having read him. I hate it that I'm scared in real life to mention that I have read his material. I'd rather see him inside the Overton window of conversation. But the worst aspect of the current attempt to deplatform, is that the line of what is acceptable is constantly changing. If I say "it's silly that someone with male equipment be allowed to use a women's bathroom", does that make me transphobic? Should I be banned from conferences? What about five years from now, when the line has moved? And what belief that is normal now, will be unacceptable in twenty years?
- tunesmith 11y ago
  I'm having trouble grasping the coherence of your point. While it may be fine to believe that some speech is considered beyond the pale (and let's leave aside the forms of speech people already agree on, like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater), the question remains, who is the arbiter, and what standards do they apply? The point is that there isn't a consistent answer to that question. And since an inconsistent answer would lead to abuse, and to the "wrong" people having their speech suppressed, the only alternative is instead to defend free speech even when objectionable, and thus argue that it shouldn't be controlled. The whole crux is what you're saying about the "wrong" people controlling speech, and for the "wrong" reasons. There is no consistent definition for "wrong" here, not that cannot be turned around and used against you or the people you'd define as "right". Which is why I essentially agree with your final paragraph, at least the sentiment about not being able to predict the moving lines of what is acceptable if we were to assign values of what kind of speech should and shouldn't be controlled. But since I don't agree with your first three paragraphs, I don't understand your point of view.
setra 11y ago
Many normal people would say that it should be limited. But this seems very contradictory to the idea of freedom of speech. Its like you can say what ever you want, as long as the ruling body of people is ok with it. Freedom of speech is not meant to protect what most people think is already ok to say. Freedom of speech is to protect unpopular opinions like Moldbugs from the masses. I for one am very comfortable going to a conference with communists, reactionaries, and anarchists. Not that I am saying individual action is the same as state sponsored opinions.
- ankushnarula 11y ago
  "Freedom of speech is to protect unpopular opinions like Moldbugs from the masses." This is lost on those who take freedom of speech for granted.
teraflop 11y ago
I suspect that if you actually ask people, you'll find relatively few who think it's OK to control free speech, but a lot more who think it's OK to react to it.
- snerbles 11y ago
  At what point does reacting to free speech become a call for control, though? I imagine that answer will differ from person to person.
defen 11y ago
I see a disturbing amount of rhetoric online (primarily from the hard left, but both sides are doing it now), portraying "freedom of speech" as not a principle worth defending, but rather a very limited proscribed set of freedoms spelled out in the First Amendment. In other words, the state cannot take action against you because of your speech (jail, fines, etc), but arbitrary non-state, non-violent punishments are allowed and even encouraged. So, in this worldview, if someone produces unacceptable speech, it would be entirely legitimate to: get him fired from his job, ensure that he never gets hired again, get him evicted from his apartment, not allow him to shop at your store, disallow his attendance at any private functions, etc. This xkcd perfectly summarizes this worldview, although I think it was produced earnestly and not as a demonstration of how terrible it is: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ Note that "unacceptable speech" is entirely undefined - it's whatever the community (which could be any arbitrary subset of humans due to the global reach of the internet) deems to be unacceptable.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  "This xkcd perfectly summarizes this worldview, although I think it was produced earnestly and not as a demonstration of how terrible it is: https://xkcd.com/1357/" https://xkcd.com/1357/" Yes, that one was enough to make me stop reading xkcd.
- HCIdivision17 11y ago
  Your last line there is the key, and the filter by which we can see if that comic is worrying or wise. HN has a rather brutal philosophy in flagging/downvoting items lacking substance and shadowbanning troll-ish folk; it seems to work ok and is usually not too sinister (and when it is, human intervention/moderation can often help). By contrast, large communities like states and national institutions can - with just a hint and a nod - inflict surprisingly chilling effects throughout communities of millions. So where do we draw the line? I dunno. Whereever we draw it, it's got to be parametric with enough inputs to take into account at least the rough subtleties of the situation. Because the comic is right: I don't need to put up with an asshole's bullshit, but I also don't want to destroy them. Just, you know, tone it down a smidge and stop being a jerk. I'm fairly passive. Normally I do that by ignoring them, changing the channel, or just avoiding the website. Rarely I'll actively flag or downvote (ugh, so hamfisted). And sometimes, I just go away if they take root. With high-signal web analytics, tracking, stats, and other social-buzz things, my avoidance may actually be logged and noted. Maybe I help starve out what I consider noise, thus boosting what I consider signal. What if a lot of people in a community are just outraged? Or are very sensitive to easily become outraged? I think that's where things get underdamped fast, and where your worries come into play. My only thought is to starve it of energy 'till it settles down, but we've seen enough self-sustaining bullshit storms that I bet passive resistance doesn't work much anymore for that. EDIT: speling

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

devalier 11y ago

Does free speech have the power to corrupt other minds at a level that that free speech should instead be controlled? Yes. And ironically, the one who convinced me of that point is Yarvin/Moldbug. (He actually argued, partly tongue-and-cheek, that Egypt should shut off its internet from the world. And while this sounds outrageous and terrible, remember that he was right about the revolutions in the Arab world, and virtually everyone in the tech world who cheered on the revolutions were wrong). I think it is fine that some speech is considered beyond the pale. Some speech is in fact dangerous. Power comes from the barrel of the gun -- but speech is used to organize the gun holders. Speech tells the people with the guns who the bad guys are. My problem is that the wrong people are controlling speech, and for the wrong reasons. De-platforming is being instigated via a heckler's veto -- the biggest cry-bullies try to dictate what is acceptable. I'd rather have speech controlled by an official council selected by a random lottery of citizens, than by self-appointed censors. And also I don't agree with banning Yarvin/Moldbug in particular. I have found Yarvin/Moldbug to be an amazingly insightful and interesting blogger. The history and sources he has cited has greatly enhanced my understanding of the world. Sometimes he can be abrasive, hyperbolic or a troll, but overall I am better off for having read him. I hate it that I'm scared in real life to mention that I have read his material. I'd rather see him inside the Overton window of conversation. But the worst aspect of the current attempt to deplatform, is that the line of what is acceptable is constantly changing. If I say "it's silly that someone with male equipment be allowed to use a women's bathroom", does that make me transphobic? Should I be banned from conferences? What about five years from now, when the line has moved? And what belief that is normal now, will be unacceptable in twenty years?

tunesmith 11y ago
I'm having trouble grasping the coherence of your point. While it may be fine to believe that some speech is considered beyond the pale (and let's leave aside the forms of speech people already agree on, like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater), the question remains, who is the arbiter, and what standards do they apply? The point is that there isn't a consistent answer to that question. And since an inconsistent answer would lead to abuse, and to the "wrong" people having their speech suppressed, the only alternative is instead to defend free speech even when objectionable, and thus argue that it shouldn't be controlled. The whole crux is what you're saying about the "wrong" people controlling speech, and for the "wrong" reasons. There is no consistent definition for "wrong" here, not that cannot be turned around and used against you or the people you'd define as "right". Which is why I essentially agree with your final paragraph, at least the sentiment about not being able to predict the moving lines of what is acceptable if we were to assign values of what kind of speech should and shouldn't be controlled. But since I don't agree with your first three paragraphs, I don't understand your point of view.

setra 11y ago

Many normal people would say that it should be limited. But this seems very contradictory to the idea of freedom of speech. Its like you can say what ever you want, as long as the ruling body of people is ok with it. Freedom of speech is not meant to protect what most people think is already ok to say. Freedom of speech is to protect unpopular opinions like Moldbugs from the masses. I for one am very comfortable going to a conference with communists, reactionaries, and anarchists. Not that I am saying individual action is the same as state sponsored opinions.

ankushnarula 11y ago
"Freedom of speech is to protect unpopular opinions like Moldbugs from the masses." This is lost on those who take freedom of speech for granted.

teraflop 11y ago

I suspect that if you actually ask people, you'll find relatively few who think it's OK to control free speech, but a lot more who think it's OK to react to it.

snerbles 11y ago
At what point does reacting to free speech become a call for control, though? I imagine that answer will differ from person to person.

defen 11y ago

I see a disturbing amount of rhetoric online (primarily from the hard left, but both sides are doing it now), portraying "freedom of speech" as not a principle worth defending, but rather a very limited proscribed set of freedoms spelled out in the First Amendment. In other words, the state cannot take action against you because of your speech (jail, fines, etc), but arbitrary non-state, non-violent punishments are allowed and even encouraged. So, in this worldview, if someone produces unacceptable speech, it would be entirely legitimate to: get him fired from his job, ensure that he never gets hired again, get him evicted from his apartment, not allow him to shop at your store, disallow his attendance at any private functions, etc. This xkcd perfectly summarizes this worldview, although I think it was produced earnestly and not as a demonstration of how terrible it is: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ Note that "unacceptable speech" is entirely undefined - it's whatever the community (which could be any arbitrary subset of humans due to the global reach of the internet) deems to be unacceptable.

Turing_Machine 11y ago
"This xkcd perfectly summarizes this worldview, although I think it was produced earnestly and not as a demonstration of how terrible it is: https://xkcd.com/1357/" https://xkcd.com/1357/" Yes, that one was enough to make me stop reading xkcd.
HCIdivision17 11y ago
Your last line there is the key, and the filter by which we can see if that comic is worrying or wise. HN has a rather brutal philosophy in flagging/downvoting items lacking substance and shadowbanning troll-ish folk; it seems to work ok and is usually not too sinister (and when it is, human intervention/moderation can often help). By contrast, large communities like states and national institutions can - with just a hint and a nod - inflict surprisingly chilling effects throughout communities of millions. So where do we draw the line? I dunno. Whereever we draw it, it's got to be parametric with enough inputs to take into account at least the rough subtleties of the situation. Because the comic is right: I don't need to put up with an asshole's bullshit, but I also don't want to destroy them. Just, you know, tone it down a smidge and stop being a jerk. I'm fairly passive. Normally I do that by ignoring them, changing the channel, or just avoiding the website. Rarely I'll actively flag or downvote (ugh, so hamfisted). And sometimes, I just go away if they take root. With high-signal web analytics, tracking, stats, and other social-buzz things, my avoidance may actually be logged and noted. Maybe I help starve out what I consider noise, thus boosting what I consider signal. What if a lot of people in a community are just outraged? Or are very sensitive to easily become outraged? I think that's where things get underdamped fast, and where your worries come into play. My only thought is to starve it of energy 'till it settles down, but we've seen enough self-sustaining bullshit storms that I bet passive resistance doesn't work much anymore for that. EDIT: speling