6 ms·

Oh please. The headline might as well have been: We need to protect people from information and ideas we don't agree with. Freedom of speech is not just abou

Oh please. The headline might as well have been: We need to protect people from information and ideas we don't agree with. Freedom of speech is not just about speech, its about ideas. Nobody should ever be deemed the arbiter of truth. Not Facebook, not the government, not anyone. Decentralize the social networks. Let everyone speak, even the bad people. Realize that you actually make the problem worse by suppressing information, even bad information. Making information "forbidden" makes it that much more appealing to people, enhancing the us-vs-them tribal mentality. Especially when its a reasonable opinion or idea with some merit. Suddenly it sounds like suppression of the truth.

DubiousPusher 8y ago
> Realize that you actually make the problem worse by suppressing information I'm not taking a position on your larger post but this is a bit of a cliche I'd politely suggest you stop using. There are numerous historical examples of the successful suppression of information and the impact of said suppression frequently helps the suppressor in exactly the way they intend.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  Unless those are less than about 20 years old, I will argue that they no longer apply. With the internet you simply cannot censor information they way you used to be able to do. With the internet you can't have an Albigensian genocide.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    No, you have a Rohingya genocide instead.
    - tomjen3 8y ago
      I never said you couldn't have a genocide, just that you couldn't have a genocide whoes goal was to remove from the face of the planet some knowledge. The combined cultural knowledge of every tribe in the world would fit on one hard drive.
throwawaywindev 8y ago
The problem is the signal to noise ratio is getting so bad that you don’t know what information to trust.
- maratd 8y ago
  > signal to noise ratio This is another euphemism for hearing ideas you disagree with. You choose who to friend/follow/read. Occasionally those people will say things you don't agree with. > you don’t know what information to trust Just because someone landed a job at [fill in traditional media outlet] does not make them more trustworthy. You're simply being exposed to the reality that their bullshit is just as much bullshit as everything else.
  - yelloweyes 8y ago
    So you're telling me that russian bots spreading lies are merely "ideas you disagree with"? I can't... I can't... jesus...
    - kingofhdds 8y ago
      Words "Russian", and "bots" are absolutely irrelevant for the discussion. "Lies" is relevant, but who is the authority to decide what belongs to the category? The whole Free Speech thing is invented exactly because history of humanity many times proved that mandatory filtering of information inevitably leads to abuse, and to lies which you want to counter.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      Why is everything a Russian bot? That conspiracy needs to end. The American media lies to you constantly (Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky), politicians lie to you constantly, advertising lies to you constantly. This isn't one big Russian scheme, it's simply capital. Was this Russia? https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/irrefutable/e598b1be-a78a-4a42-8e1a-c336f7a217f4/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2623c4cdb9e2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...
hobs 8y ago
Saying "everyone should speak" actually means "everyone should speak according to their purchasing power in the market" right now - so I think your premise, while well meaning, is not realistic. Having liars with big pockets broadcast lies (propaganda) works very effectively, no "black market suppression of the truth" is needed to weaponize bad ideas.
- harshreality 8y ago
  Propaganda from deep-pocketed individuals and organizations is a problem, but the current cure is worse than the disease, particularly when the censorship itself is biased. It takes more to be labelled fringe and justify censorship for left-leaning speech, than it takes for right-leaning speech. The root problem with modern discourse and social media is subtle, unforced siloing of communication within subgroups, so that there's not enough subgroup-bridging discussion. Overton windows shrink until subgroup-bridging discussion is mostly impossible. That all happens without any active censorship.
  - smacktoward 8y ago
    > the current cure is worse than the disease This comment is the text version of that cartoon where the dog sits in the room where everything is on fire thinking "this is fine."
    - basurihn 8y ago
      Assuming that the "cure" refers to some form of blasphemy law, then it is actually apropos, although devoid of explanation, sure. I'm assuming you are liberal. Go read Popehat's views on blasphemy laws. He's liberal.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > It takes more to be labelled fringe and justify censorship for left-leaning speech, than it takes for right-leaning speech. That's because there's more harm-promoting speech, and more incoherent lies, from the right? Saying there should be equal treatment of left and right speech regardless of the content is nonsense.
sova 8y ago
Don't give up your right to unbiased information! Don't channel your understanding through one source! You've gotta fight, for your right, to party!
jasonlotito 8y ago
> Nobody should ever be deemed the arbiter of truth. Except for you and your comment, right?
- reitanqild 8y ago
  GP didn't say that.
codetwelve 8y ago
In Canada there is a law where you can't lie on the news. It's worked pretty well and I can at least stand the news programs we have. I also think you're a bit too naive. Without proper governance look at what is happening in america. America from the outside believes climate change is a hoax because republicans are bought. No one is willing to go against the establishment and make laws to stop this when they're clearly INCORRECT ideas that are being pushed to the masses misinforming people.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  Who gets to determine if you lie? What constitutes a lie? Can I say that the holocaust never happened, if that is what I actually believe? How about global warming. Besides it only takes a marginally more more skilled speaker to get the same result and say nothing at all that can be stated as a direct lie.
  - codetwelve 8y ago
    No, if you're a news organization you can't say things because you believe it. That's the point.
oliwarner 8y ago
Nah. This conflagratory term "fake news" deliberately muddles "things that aren't very important" with "lies told by officials". I think the second needs to be a condition of public office. You deliberately lie, or show a pattern of not giving a shit about the truth, pack your bags and get a private sector job. Conversely and perversely, the varied institutions of public office seem to protect politicians' speech. This seems deeply wrong. And obviously this seems partisan at the moment because there's currrently a 200lb orangutan as POTUS who can't keep his story straight about anything... But this is a standard we should all want, for all out politicians, worldwide. Just to be clear, I think you have to be allowed to say this stuff, I just think that ends at the point where you're a public official. You can still say it, but you'll lose your job.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  But who would be the arbitraitor who decides when you have lied so much you have to leave?
  - oliwarner 8y ago
    I'm not saying there are quick and easy answers here, just that even agreeing a very high burden of evidence is better than... this.

DubiousPusher 8y ago

> Realize that you actually make the problem worse by suppressing information I'm not taking a position on your larger post but this is a bit of a cliche I'd politely suggest you stop using. There are numerous historical examples of the successful suppression of information and the impact of said suppression frequently helps the suppressor in exactly the way they intend.

tomjen3 8y ago
Unless those are less than about 20 years old, I will argue that they no longer apply. With the internet you simply cannot censor information they way you used to be able to do. With the internet you can't have an Albigensian genocide.
- pjc50 8y ago
  No, you have a Rohingya genocide instead.
  - tomjen3 8y ago
    I never said you couldn't have a genocide, just that you couldn't have a genocide whoes goal was to remove from the face of the planet some knowledge. The combined cultural knowledge of every tribe in the world would fit on one hard drive.

throwawaywindev 8y ago

The problem is the signal to noise ratio is getting so bad that you don’t know what information to trust.

maratd 8y ago
> signal to noise ratio This is another euphemism for hearing ideas you disagree with. You choose who to friend/follow/read. Occasionally those people will say things you don't agree with. > you don’t know what information to trust Just because someone landed a job at [fill in traditional media outlet] does not make them more trustworthy. You're simply being exposed to the reality that their bullshit is just as much bullshit as everything else.
- yelloweyes 8y ago
  So you're telling me that russian bots spreading lies are merely "ideas you disagree with"? I can't... I can't... jesus...
  - kingofhdds 8y ago
    Words "Russian", and "bots" are absolutely irrelevant for the discussion. "Lies" is relevant, but who is the authority to decide what belongs to the category? The whole Free Speech thing is invented exactly because history of humanity many times proved that mandatory filtering of information inevitably leads to abuse, and to lies which you want to counter.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    Why is everything a Russian bot? That conspiracy needs to end. The American media lies to you constantly (Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky), politicians lie to you constantly, advertising lies to you constantly. This isn't one big Russian scheme, it's simply capital. Was this Russia? https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/irrefutable/e598b1be-a78a-4a42-8e1a-c336f7a217f4/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2623c4cdb9e2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...

hobs 8y ago

Saying "everyone should speak" actually means "everyone should speak according to their purchasing power in the market" right now - so I think your premise, while well meaning, is not realistic. Having liars with big pockets broadcast lies (propaganda) works very effectively, no "black market suppression of the truth" is needed to weaponize bad ideas.

harshreality 8y ago
Propaganda from deep-pocketed individuals and organizations is a problem, but the current cure is worse than the disease, particularly when the censorship itself is biased. It takes more to be labelled fringe and justify censorship for left-leaning speech, than it takes for right-leaning speech. The root problem with modern discourse and social media is subtle, unforced siloing of communication within subgroups, so that there's not enough subgroup-bridging discussion. Overton windows shrink until subgroup-bridging discussion is mostly impossible. That all happens without any active censorship.
- smacktoward 8y ago
  > the current cure is worse than the disease This comment is the text version of that cartoon where the dog sits in the room where everything is on fire thinking "this is fine."
  - basurihn 8y ago
    Assuming that the "cure" refers to some form of blasphemy law, then it is actually apropos, although devoid of explanation, sure. I'm assuming you are liberal. Go read Popehat's views on blasphemy laws. He's liberal.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > It takes more to be labelled fringe and justify censorship for left-leaning speech, than it takes for right-leaning speech. That's because there's more harm-promoting speech, and more incoherent lies, from the right? Saying there should be equal treatment of left and right speech regardless of the content is nonsense.

sova 8y ago

Don't give up your right to unbiased information! Don't channel your understanding through one source! You've gotta fight, for your right, to party!

jasonlotito 8y ago

> Nobody should ever be deemed the arbiter of truth. Except for you and your comment, right?

reitanqild 8y ago
GP didn't say that.

codetwelve 8y ago

In Canada there is a law where you can't lie on the news. It's worked pretty well and I can at least stand the news programs we have. I also think you're a bit too naive. Without proper governance look at what is happening in america. America from the outside believes climate change is a hoax because republicans are bought. No one is willing to go against the establishment and make laws to stop this when they're clearly INCORRECT ideas that are being pushed to the masses misinforming people.

tomjen3 8y ago
Who gets to determine if you lie? What constitutes a lie? Can I say that the holocaust never happened, if that is what I actually believe? How about global warming. Besides it only takes a marginally more more skilled speaker to get the same result and say nothing at all that can be stated as a direct lie.
- codetwelve 8y ago
  No, if you're a news organization you can't say things because you believe it. That's the point.

oliwarner 8y ago

Nah. This conflagratory term "fake news" deliberately muddles "things that aren't very important" with "lies told by officials". I think the second needs to be a condition of public office. You deliberately lie, or show a pattern of not giving a shit about the truth, pack your bags and get a private sector job. Conversely and perversely, the varied institutions of public office seem to protect politicians' speech. This seems deeply wrong. And obviously this seems partisan at the moment because there's currrently a 200lb orangutan as POTUS who can't keep his story straight about anything... But this is a standard we should all want, for all out politicians, worldwide. Just to be clear, I think you have to be allowed to say this stuff, I just think that ends at the point where you're a public official. You can still say it, but you'll lose your job.

tomjen3 8y ago
But who would be the arbitraitor who decides when you have lied so much you have to leave?
- oliwarner 8y ago
  I'm not saying there are quick and easy answers here, just that even agreeing a very high burden of evidence is better than... this.