5 ms·

Clearly this is an attempt at censorship which is evil and stupid; But I want to step back and think about what the practical issues of trying to ban fake news.

by sqeaky 10y ago

Clearly this is an attempt at censorship which is evil and stupid; But I want to step back and think about what the practical issues of trying to ban fake news. How does one differentiate between silly things that clearly satire like the onion and extremists like flat-earthers that cleared ought to be the target of satire? Let's presume all the Facebook and fakenews servers are outside of Germany, or whatever metaphorical country, then how are the laws suppose to stop them? Block that site in the country, that doesn't even work in China?

danieldk 10y ago
Clearly this is an attempt at censorship which is evil and stupid; Why should defamation laws that apply to newspapers and other media not apply to social media? Another issue is that defamation spreads much quicker through social media than most traditional means and it is harder to hold persons accountable (especially when they are not in the same country). So, it makes sense to evaluate what defamation means in the digital age. The parliamentary and judicial processes should show what is feasible and within bounds of the constitution. (I understand the frustration. Are you a big ad customer? You can call Facebook and get them to assist you immediately. Are you the victim of provably incorrect personal attacks, no way you can get Facebook to help. Unless you cause a big media storm.)
- sqeaky 10y ago
  > Why should defamation laws that apply to newspapers and other media not apply to social media? Because social media everyone talking to everyone, not a (hopefully) trained and responsible person attempting to be a source of truth addressing the masses. I am also against libel laws and anti-defamation beyond the most minimal required to prevent fraud. When you start legislating truth it is only a matter of time until you have a state run ministry of truth.
sabertoothed 10y ago
While I agree with your overall sentiment, your statement "censorship which is evil and stupid" is clearly overly simplistic and, hence, wrong. 100% free speech does not exist in _any_ country (not even the US) - and it would not even be desirable. A society is better off overall if there are limits to free speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, etc.). You probably have to argue in a more nuanced way.
- jmcdiesel 10y ago
  > A society is better off overall if there are limits to free > speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, > etc.) Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended. False advertisement isn't about free speech - it's about making a verbal contract and not following through. You're free to say whatever you want, and the offence isn't in the saying it, its in the failure to keep the contract. Society is rarely served by more restriction.
  - sabertoothed 10y ago
    I don't think you are right, here. At least from a factual "as is" legal standpoint but also from my moral standpoint ("what should be" / normative). I am not sure which standpoint you are addressing. The easiest standpoint to defend is the factual / descriptive "as is" legal standpoint: Insults / defamations are legally not allowed in most countries. False advertisement IS indeed an exception to free speech. See here [1]. But maybe you were not talking about descriptive claims but normative ones. This would be a very different discussion. [1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Commercial_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
  - paradite 10y ago
    Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended. This entire paragraph sounds like either paradox (first and last sentence) or sophistry.
    - jmcdiesel 10y ago
      I think you're confusing the verb "insult" (as it, doing something with the intent of insulting someone) with the state of being insulted. TO insult someone is to ATTEMPT to make them feel insulted, but its up to that person whether or not they are insulted.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
The real question is: In the current world, where it's extremely easy to disseminate either real or false info on social media, and it has become possible to weaponize this mechanism to try and influence the core engine of a democracy (the minds of the voters), how would you re-define national defense in order to account for the new kind of threats in this environment?

by sqeaky 10y ago

danieldk 10y ago

Clearly this is an attempt at censorship which is evil and stupid; Why should defamation laws that apply to newspapers and other media not apply to social media? Another issue is that defamation spreads much quicker through social media than most traditional means and it is harder to hold persons accountable (especially when they are not in the same country). So, it makes sense to evaluate what defamation means in the digital age. The parliamentary and judicial processes should show what is feasible and within bounds of the constitution. (I understand the frustration. Are you a big ad customer? You can call Facebook and get them to assist you immediately. Are you the victim of provably incorrect personal attacks, no way you can get Facebook to help. Unless you cause a big media storm.)

sqeaky 10y ago
> Why should defamation laws that apply to newspapers and other media not apply to social media? Because social media everyone talking to everyone, not a (hopefully) trained and responsible person attempting to be a source of truth addressing the masses. I am also against libel laws and anti-defamation beyond the most minimal required to prevent fraud. When you start legislating truth it is only a matter of time until you have a state run ministry of truth.

sabertoothed 10y ago

While I agree with your overall sentiment, your statement "censorship which is evil and stupid" is clearly overly simplistic and, hence, wrong. 100% free speech does not exist in _any_ country (not even the US) - and it would not even be desirable. A society is better off overall if there are limits to free speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, etc.). You probably have to argue in a more nuanced way.

jmcdiesel 10y ago
> A society is better off overall if there are limits to free > speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, > etc.) Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended. False advertisement isn't about free speech - it's about making a verbal contract and not following through. You're free to say whatever you want, and the offence isn't in the saying it, its in the failure to keep the contract. Society is rarely served by more restriction.
- sabertoothed 10y ago
  I don't think you are right, here. At least from a factual "as is" legal standpoint but also from my moral standpoint ("what should be" / normative). I am not sure which standpoint you are addressing. The easiest standpoint to defend is the factual / descriptive "as is" legal standpoint: Insults / defamations are legally not allowed in most countries. False advertisement IS indeed an exception to free speech. See here [1]. But maybe you were not talking about descriptive claims but normative ones. This would be a very different discussion. [1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Commercial_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- paradite 10y ago
  Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended. This entire paragraph sounds like either paradox (first and last sentence) or sophistry.
  - jmcdiesel 10y ago
    I think you're confusing the verb "insult" (as it, doing something with the intent of insulting someone) with the state of being insulted. TO insult someone is to ATTEMPT to make them feel insulted, but its up to that person whether or not they are insulted.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

The real question is: In the current world, where it's extremely easy to disseminate either real or false info on social media, and it has become possible to weaponize this mechanism to try and influence the core engine of a democracy (the minds of the voters), how would you re-define national defense in order to account for the new kind of threats in this environment?