6 ms·

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but individuals and journalists alike should really think through the consequences of having Facebook police content more aggressi

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but individuals and journalists alike should really think through the consequences of having Facebook police content more aggressively. Almost every time I hear someone advocate for speech policing, they mention obviously awful speech (e.g. Nazi Germany, Sandy Hook conspiracy theories) as an example. And I agree, that speech sucks, most of us can agree about that because we have hindsight to educate us. In reality, speech is really murky. From what I recall from history classes, "Nazi" ideas like Eugenics weren't Nazi ideas, they were popular at the time everywhere, including in the US. Anti-semitism was not Germany exclusive (and still isn't). When you find yourself inside a society, it becomes very difficult to separate yourself from its collective delusions. In this, it becomes dangerous for a central authority to police speech: how to agree on which speech is acceptable (past the generally abhorrent speech like that mentioned above) is difficult and bound to either be abused in the worst case or best case many mistakes will be made. Historically, because of the issues mentioned above, I feel against most speech policing in general theoretically. Admittedly, however, I also demographically don't really feel the effects of hate speech, so it's easy for me to take this emotionally distant stance. The best solution I can come up with here is, especially online, a series of filters: bifurcate platforms like Facebook into a feed where content is moderated, and give users options to opt into unmoderated streams (unmoderated to the extent the law allows).

FactolSarin 8y ago
What happens when an idealized individual freedom collides with concrete societal need? What happens when "freedom of speech" is used to spread lies, disinformation, and injure the fabric of a country? Is the point of freedom of speech because it leads to a freer people? Or is it for its own sake? If the former, what happens if it's shown that limiting freedom of speech by banning purposeful misinformation helps society as a whole? I kind of think we're there. I'm an ethical utilitarian (well, mix in some contractualism) and I think generally what's best is what benefits the most people most of the time. Maybe that's limiting the voices of those who are trying to deceive people and breed hate.
- berbec 8y ago
  Even assuming we agree Facebook does in fact provide such a concrete societal need, as it is not part of government, how is it bound by the first ammendment? Edit: argumentative.
meowface 8y ago
Exactly. Facebook suppressing "fake news" is one of the slipperiest of all slopes. People who harass these parents for being supposed "crisis actors" or post any of their personal information should obviously be banned, but, in general, trying to ban ideas doesn't work and will lead to a net worse outcome in the end. Especially on massive common-carrier-esque services like Facebook or reddit. Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists are some of the most poisonous things in the modern discourse, but the right answer is not to ban all mention of them. That's how they grow stronger. An ability to opt-in to a heavily moderated version of their feed seems reasonable, as long as it's opt-in and not opt-out.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  It's not obvious that there actually is a worse outcome. The outcome that we are living with (parents in grief being further harassed by conspiracy theorists) is already pretty bad. And remember, this is just western fake news. In the east, fake news has resulted in people murdering completely innocent strangers with somber regularity.
  - ironjunkie 8y ago
    No actual Worse outcome? What will happen the day Facebook will start censoring any pro-gun content? This slippery slope will create an even bigger divide in society. As soon as you decide that some content is forbidden and off limit, people that want to have a debate about that content will now be in a group that is viewed as "fringe and off limit". This can only lead to group thinking, civil war and civil unrest. The only good way to address this is to let people speech and prove them wrong by having a civil debate.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "What will happen the day Facebook will start censoring any pro-gun content?" Then we cross that bridge when we get to it. But I find this idea that they'll leap straight from banning people harassing the survivors of mass shootings to banning all gun content absolutely idiotic. Like, far beyond the "slippery slope" stuff that normally gets thrown out. "The only good way to address this is to let people speech and prove them wrong by having a civil debate." I'm pretty sure the last 10 years or so have proven that false. See: GamerGate.
Tehnix 8y ago
I don’t think your opinion is that unpopular, I just think it often gets drowned in opinions of those that are louder. Personally, while I can certainly see why people don’t like to be offended, policing speech is a slippery slope, because there is absolutely nothing objective about what is offensive/hate speech and what is not. There is no perfect solution for it, but I would personally take the freer of the approaches, come at the cost it will. Side-note: I don’t understand why anyone would downvote this. It’s articulate, thought out, and constructive.
- Kenji 8y ago
  They downvote it because HN is infested with political correctness fascists who like trampling free speech with their feet if their feelings get hurt. You have been in this community for 6 years. Didn't you notice yet??
- GauntletWizard 8y ago
  It's not unpopular. There's a disconnect: It's a popular opinion, but a silent majority. Voicing that opinion, though, makes you a target. I feel like language is failing me here; What do you call it when the masses are oppressed for fear of speaking out against the powerful and vicious that would suppress them?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I downvoted it because it had the whole, "Perhaps this is an unpopular opinion..." schtick before stating something that is very obviously a popular opinion here.
- btilly 8y ago
  The answer to your side note is because people disagree with it. ie It is unpopular. Which undermines your leading point that you think that it isn't unpopular.
- seventhtiger 8y ago
  Here's a truly unpopular opinion: there is another option. One of the reasons bad free speech is so common on the Internet is because of anonymity. A lot of it like death threats, inciting violence, libel, and more are already illegal. They just cannot be enforced due to anonymity. I would like for speech on the Internet to be just as free as off the Internet, and have the same consequences socially and legally. I'm in support of something like the South Korean solution. Tie online identity to real identity.
kryogen1c 8y ago
As the now counter-culture movement says: if you're not for free speech you disagree with, you're not for free speech.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  The issue is that most of us don't consider harassment to be free speech.
  - kryogen1c 8y ago
    I agree, that is the issue. To be less obtuse, harassment is exactly free speech. No one has a right to not have their feelings hurt and trying to prevent that is a fools errand that can only end badly, usually in death. Every psychologist that treats patients knows you don't help people by making the world be nicer to them, you help them by teaching them to be stronger and more resilient.
    - berbec 8y ago
      The idea of safe spaces etc doesn't fly with me either. But I'd say harassment as described in this article isn't just being mean. There were death threats. How do you get stronger and more resilient when faced with someone saying they are going to kill you?
      - kryogen1c 8y ago
        Death threats and calls to violence are illegal and not protected under free speech.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Why are you so against the idea of some place where people can go to get a respite from the slings and arrows that are constantly assailed against them? Why do you feel that people should constantly have to be on guard against, say having racial slurs hurled at them every minute of every day? Why are you so against the idea that people should have a space where they can feel safe and not constantly judged?
wallace_f 8y ago
People forget who they are handing their power to. Communists, racial minorities, gays, marijuana users, anti-war protestors, you-name-it have had their freedom of speech infringed upon. People forget it can happen to anyone. And it will change, depending on who is in power. It's an illustration of the unfortunate: "liberty for me, but not for thee." Fighting intolerance by being intolerant. And all the same things people do in history which enables tyranny too many times.
- underdunder 8y ago
  You know what else enable tyrannies? Doing nothing
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Inclusive of all those above groups, I've posted stories and comments in support of them. They are always upvoted. However, when I post comments that all should have civil liberties, it's sometimes controversial. Anyways, I'm glad I had the fortune of living in a country where there is at least effort to afford them to everyone. But I poorly worded my comment. However, it's been the case that America has generally given even the worst scoundrels their liberties--and that is the unfortunate part about defending civil liberties, that those who do end up defending scoundrels. But today, even to great expense to the taxpayer they are afforded due process. And that's the way it should be. You don't want to live in a nation without due process or free speech or the rest of your rights.
maxerickson 8y ago
So Facebook already uses some algorithm to prioritize what users see. Once they are doing that, what's the problem with deemphasizing obvious nonsense?

FactolSarin 8y ago

What happens when an idealized individual freedom collides with concrete societal need? What happens when "freedom of speech" is used to spread lies, disinformation, and injure the fabric of a country? Is the point of freedom of speech because it leads to a freer people? Or is it for its own sake? If the former, what happens if it's shown that limiting freedom of speech by banning purposeful misinformation helps society as a whole? I kind of think we're there. I'm an ethical utilitarian (well, mix in some contractualism) and I think generally what's best is what benefits the most people most of the time. Maybe that's limiting the voices of those who are trying to deceive people and breed hate.

berbec 8y ago
Even assuming we agree Facebook does in fact provide such a concrete societal need, as it is not part of government, how is it bound by the first ammendment? Edit: argumentative.

meowface 8y ago

Exactly. Facebook suppressing "fake news" is one of the slipperiest of all slopes. People who harass these parents for being supposed "crisis actors" or post any of their personal information should obviously be banned, but, in general, trying to ban ideas doesn't work and will lead to a net worse outcome in the end. Especially on massive common-carrier-esque services like Facebook or reddit. Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists are some of the most poisonous things in the modern discourse, but the right answer is not to ban all mention of them. That's how they grow stronger. An ability to opt-in to a heavily moderated version of their feed seems reasonable, as long as it's opt-in and not opt-out.

ggggtez 8y ago
It's not obvious that there actually is a worse outcome. The outcome that we are living with (parents in grief being further harassed by conspiracy theorists) is already pretty bad. And remember, this is just western fake news. In the east, fake news has resulted in people murdering completely innocent strangers with somber regularity.
- ironjunkie 8y ago
  No actual Worse outcome? What will happen the day Facebook will start censoring any pro-gun content? This slippery slope will create an even bigger divide in society. As soon as you decide that some content is forbidden and off limit, people that want to have a debate about that content will now be in a group that is viewed as "fringe and off limit". This can only lead to group thinking, civil war and civil unrest. The only good way to address this is to let people speech and prove them wrong by having a civil debate.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "What will happen the day Facebook will start censoring any pro-gun content?" Then we cross that bridge when we get to it. But I find this idea that they'll leap straight from banning people harassing the survivors of mass shootings to banning all gun content absolutely idiotic. Like, far beyond the "slippery slope" stuff that normally gets thrown out. "The only good way to address this is to let people speech and prove them wrong by having a civil debate." I'm pretty sure the last 10 years or so have proven that false. See: GamerGate.

Tehnix 8y ago

I don’t think your opinion is that unpopular, I just think it often gets drowned in opinions of those that are louder. Personally, while I can certainly see why people don’t like to be offended, policing speech is a slippery slope, because there is absolutely nothing objective about what is offensive/hate speech and what is not. There is no perfect solution for it, but I would personally take the freer of the approaches, come at the cost it will. Side-note: I don’t understand why anyone would downvote this. It’s articulate, thought out, and constructive.

Kenji 8y ago
They downvote it because HN is infested with political correctness fascists who like trampling free speech with their feet if their feelings get hurt. You have been in this community for 6 years. Didn't you notice yet??
GauntletWizard 8y ago
It's not unpopular. There's a disconnect: It's a popular opinion, but a silent majority. Voicing that opinion, though, makes you a target. I feel like language is failing me here; What do you call it when the masses are oppressed for fear of speaking out against the powerful and vicious that would suppress them?
s73v3r_ 8y ago
I downvoted it because it had the whole, "Perhaps this is an unpopular opinion..." schtick before stating something that is very obviously a popular opinion here.
btilly 8y ago
The answer to your side note is because people disagree with it. ie It is unpopular. Which undermines your leading point that you think that it isn't unpopular.
seventhtiger 8y ago
Here's a truly unpopular opinion: there is another option. One of the reasons bad free speech is so common on the Internet is because of anonymity. A lot of it like death threats, inciting violence, libel, and more are already illegal. They just cannot be enforced due to anonymity. I would like for speech on the Internet to be just as free as off the Internet, and have the same consequences socially and legally. I'm in support of something like the South Korean solution. Tie online identity to real identity.

kryogen1c 8y ago

As the now counter-culture movement says: if you're not for free speech you disagree with, you're not for free speech.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
The issue is that most of us don't consider harassment to be free speech.
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  I agree, that is the issue. To be less obtuse, harassment is exactly free speech. No one has a right to not have their feelings hurt and trying to prevent that is a fools errand that can only end badly, usually in death. Every psychologist that treats patients knows you don't help people by making the world be nicer to them, you help them by teaching them to be stronger and more resilient.
  - berbec 8y ago
    The idea of safe spaces etc doesn't fly with me either. But I'd say harassment as described in this article isn't just being mean. There were death threats. How do you get stronger and more resilient when faced with someone saying they are going to kill you?
    - kryogen1c 8y ago
      Death threats and calls to violence are illegal and not protected under free speech.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Why are you so against the idea of some place where people can go to get a respite from the slings and arrows that are constantly assailed against them? Why do you feel that people should constantly have to be on guard against, say having racial slurs hurled at them every minute of every day? Why are you so against the idea that people should have a space where they can feel safe and not constantly judged?

wallace_f 8y ago

People forget who they are handing their power to. Communists, racial minorities, gays, marijuana users, anti-war protestors, you-name-it have had their freedom of speech infringed upon. People forget it can happen to anyone. And it will change, depending on who is in power. It's an illustration of the unfortunate: "liberty for me, but not for thee." Fighting intolerance by being intolerant. And all the same things people do in history which enables tyranny too many times.

underdunder 8y ago
You know what else enable tyrannies? Doing nothing
- wallace_f 8y ago
  Inclusive of all those above groups, I've posted stories and comments in support of them. They are always upvoted. However, when I post comments that all should have civil liberties, it's sometimes controversial. Anyways, I'm glad I had the fortune of living in a country where there is at least effort to afford them to everyone. But I poorly worded my comment. However, it's been the case that America has generally given even the worst scoundrels their liberties--and that is the unfortunate part about defending civil liberties, that those who do end up defending scoundrels. But today, even to great expense to the taxpayer they are afforded due process. And that's the way it should be. You don't want to live in a nation without due process or free speech or the rest of your rights.

maxerickson 8y ago

So Facebook already uses some algorithm to prioritize what users see. Once they are doing that, what's the problem with deemphasizing obvious nonsense?