4 ms·

"...while I can appreciate sticking to the view that free speech is best for all, there are some behaviours which society has mostly agreed are objectionable...

"...while I can appreciate sticking to the view that free speech is best for all, there are some behaviours which society has mostly agreed are objectionable..." Free speech exists specifically to allow people to go against "what society has mostly agreed is objectionable", that's the whole point. "What society has mostly agreed is objectionable" is the problem that free speech fixes.

frio 8y ago
Free speech is... an incredibly nuanced topic, and I apologise for phrasing this discussion poorly in the original post. I don't particularly believe it's worth diving into the nuance of it here -- because I'll do a bad job! -- but I should make it clear that I wasn't intending to make any comment about whether the principle is right or wrong (I mean, the UN makes it pretty clear http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ :)); I'm merely pointing out that free speech/censorship exist on a spectrum, and our tolerances and interpretations of those principles shift over time. As an example, many democratic nations have decided that there are consequences, enshrined in law, for what they define as hate speech. I suspect that even in the USA, a country that is extremely passionate about protecting the right to free speech, you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue that sharing pirated content (... at the "less objectionable" end of the spectrum ;)) is an expression of free speech. As the content becomes more objectionable, that argument becomes more difficult. I'm using "objectionable content" as an example here to simplify the argument; I'll freely admit that what scares me is the distortion of the principle of free speech by (as the sibling comment points out) bad actors. I don't know that I have the education or skillset to discuss that problem effectively, but it is an issue that is beginning to have widespread societal impacts. That aside, the real point is that solving the problem of centralization vs. decentralization does not make the choice of totalitarianism vs. anarchism, or determine/enforce the behaviours we determine to be socially acceptable on whichever platform we use. The technical underpinnings may favour one end of the spectrum or the other, but do not replace a genuine, social discussion about the governance of our social networks -- whether we replace the current batch or not.
- PinkMilkshake 8y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. I feel bad for jumping on you so quickly. There is a growing anti-free speech movement that scares me and I come down on it hard even at the hint of it. I've lost good friends over it. I agree with your point (if I'm understanding it correctly), you can't use software to encode human values. Piracy is an interesting example. Companies implemented DRM to try and stop people from copying information they own, and it failed. Now people are attempting to do the same to stop companies from copying their information. It didn't work in one direction, why would it work in the other?
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Until the people who manipulate free speech for political and financial gain either poison it or ban it. There is no such thing as free speech in an era of weaponised media. The principle has become a nonsense. Free speech cannot exist when there are huge well-funded and technology sophisticated opinion forming machines influencing the public - because shouting down and discrediting “unpopular” (i.e. politically and economically undesirable) opinions is just censorship dressed up as free debate.
- unimpressive 8y ago
  >There is no such thing as free speech in an era of weaponised media. The principle has become a nonsense. You're aware the 20th centuries relative journalistic neutrality is a historical aberration, right? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/frondeurs-and-fake-news-how-misinformation-ruled-in-17th-century-france-a7872276.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/frondeurs-and-... https://theconversation.com/techniques-of-19th-century-fake-news-reporter-teach-us-why-we-fall-for-it-today-75583 https://theconversation.com/techniques-of-19th-century-fake-...
- pavelludiq 8y ago
  No matter how dangerous free speech may be in your mind, censorship is 1000x more dangerous. I see evidence of this all around me as the remnants of an inhumane regime still stand in every city here and in the cities of most of our neighbors. If no such evidence is present in your environment, consider yourself extremely fortunate and please don't take it for granted. Pick up a history book and consider the implications of what you are saying very carefully. Simply put, the way to fight the abuse of free speech is with more free speech, not less, more access to information, not less, more freedom of assembly and association, not less. This principle has been the foundation of the least repressive societies in human history and it has a definite and proven track record, unlike limiting speech, which simply does not.

frio 8y ago

Free speech is... an incredibly nuanced topic, and I apologise for phrasing this discussion poorly in the original post. I don't particularly believe it's worth diving into the nuance of it here -- because I'll do a bad job! -- but I should make it clear that I wasn't intending to make any comment about whether the principle is right or wrong (I mean, the UN makes it pretty clear http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ :)); I'm merely pointing out that free speech/censorship exist on a spectrum, and our tolerances and interpretations of those principles shift over time. As an example, many democratic nations have decided that there are consequences, enshrined in law, for what they define as hate speech. I suspect that even in the USA, a country that is extremely passionate about protecting the right to free speech, you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue that sharing pirated content (... at the "less objectionable" end of the spectrum ;)) is an expression of free speech. As the content becomes more objectionable, that argument becomes more difficult. I'm using "objectionable content" as an example here to simplify the argument; I'll freely admit that what scares me is the distortion of the principle of free speech by (as the sibling comment points out) bad actors. I don't know that I have the education or skillset to discuss that problem effectively, but it is an issue that is beginning to have widespread societal impacts. That aside, the real point is that solving the problem of centralization vs. decentralization does not make the choice of totalitarianism vs. anarchism, or determine/enforce the behaviours we determine to be socially acceptable on whichever platform we use. The technical underpinnings may favour one end of the spectrum or the other, but do not replace a genuine, social discussion about the governance of our social networks -- whether we replace the current batch or not.

PinkMilkshake 8y ago
Thanks for clarifying. I feel bad for jumping on you so quickly. There is a growing anti-free speech movement that scares me and I come down on it hard even at the hint of it. I've lost good friends over it. I agree with your point (if I'm understanding it correctly), you can't use software to encode human values. Piracy is an interesting example. Companies implemented DRM to try and stop people from copying information they own, and it failed. Now people are attempting to do the same to stop companies from copying their information. It didn't work in one direction, why would it work in the other?

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

Until the people who manipulate free speech for political and financial gain either poison it or ban it. There is no such thing as free speech in an era of weaponised media. The principle has become a nonsense. Free speech cannot exist when there are huge well-funded and technology sophisticated opinion forming machines influencing the public - because shouting down and discrediting “unpopular” (i.e. politically and economically undesirable) opinions is just censorship dressed up as free debate.

unimpressive 8y ago
>There is no such thing as free speech in an era of weaponised media. The principle has become a nonsense. You're aware the 20th centuries relative journalistic neutrality is a historical aberration, right? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/frondeurs-and-fake-news-how-misinformation-ruled-in-17th-century-france-a7872276.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/frondeurs-and-... https://theconversation.com/techniques-of-19th-century-fake-news-reporter-teach-us-why-we-fall-for-it-today-75583 https://theconversation.com/techniques-of-19th-century-fake-...
pavelludiq 8y ago
No matter how dangerous free speech may be in your mind, censorship is 1000x more dangerous. I see evidence of this all around me as the remnants of an inhumane regime still stand in every city here and in the cities of most of our neighbors. If no such evidence is present in your environment, consider yourself extremely fortunate and please don't take it for granted. Pick up a history book and consider the implications of what you are saying very carefully. Simply put, the way to fight the abuse of free speech is with more free speech, not less, more access to information, not less, more freedom of assembly and association, not less. This principle has been the foundation of the least repressive societies in human history and it has a definite and proven track record, unlike limiting speech, which simply does not.