4 ms·

"Free speech is good" is not a "blithe techno-utopian narrative". The internet makes people uncomfortable because it lives somewhere in between the realm of pu

"Free speech is good" is not a "blithe techno-utopian narrative". The internet makes people uncomfortable because it lives somewhere in between the realm of public discourse (heavily regulated) and private discourse (mostly unregulated). On the internet, these realms mix, and people (especially in the press) have a hard time sorting out which is which. I don't know if "free speech is good" or if it "leads inexorably to truth and progress". I doubt it. But I do think that any cure will be worse than the disease. Democracy may not not "lead inexorably to progress" either, but does that mean we should nix it?

aeturnum 7y ago
I think your comment and Zuckerberg’s framing of the issue hides the ball in a way that appears dishonest, though I do not think that is your intent. For instance, what do you mean by this?: > But I do think that any cure will be worse than the disease Because it all depends on what "cure" and "disease" mean, right? Free speech is good is blithe and techno-utopian in the sense that it makes a blanket statement that refuses to get into the details and have opinions. Facebook used for ethnic cleansing? Well, free speech is good and Facebook is all bout free speech; the problem has to lie elsewhere. Guess we should fix that ethnic cleansing problem somewhere else. Sticking to a high-level generality implies that, because your basic aim is good we must frame solutions or restrictions in a different way. We must remedy the damage done with speech using ideas and methods that aren't related to speech, somehow. I don't know what is in Zuckerberg’s heart, but it strikes me that this position is extremely kind to Facebook's business model. As long as everyone is committed to unmoderated speech being central to digital spaces, they can avoid expensive moderation. They can also distance themselves from the consequences of the use of the platform they designed and provide. We should not let them do either one of those things. Edit: To use a non-speech example: This seems to me like someone claiming that we can't do anything about drunk driving because "people need to drive to work." Of course, the statement is true and people do need to drive to work. It simply glosses over all of the many changes we can make to how we let people drive that can crack down on drunk driving. It refuses to engage with the issue by asserting a general principle that, actually, does not present any obstacle to regulation and is unresponsive to the critique.
- pbreit 7y ago
  How could you possibly ever accuse a website of being “used for ethnic cleansing”?
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    Have we so forgotten the lessons of the past that we think communications mediums cannot aid in genocide? Look up the role of Joseph Goebbels and the then-nascent radio on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.
  - aeturnum 7y ago
    To answer your question directly: if groups engage in ethnic cleansing use a website to plan, coordinate or communicate about how and where to carry out their actions, they are using a website for ethnic cleansing. I encourage you to look into the situation in Myanmar: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
- repolfx 7y ago
  Facebook used for ethnic cleansing? I'm not sure you should criticise others for hiding the ball or being dishonest when phrasing it like that. Facebook is a website, a pretty trivial one at that. It isn't attached to flying weapons platforms, it doesn't command an army. It cannot be used for ethnic cleansing in any sensible use of English, no more than paper and ink or radio can be "used for ethnic cleansing". So yes - your sarcastic statement is correct. If some African warlord goes nuts and starts mass killing his ethnic rivals, Facebook has sweet FA to do that with that, even if lots of his supporters are posting on Facebook. The problem lies with the people pulling the trigger, the people command them to pull the trigger. Don't try and spread it to Zuckerberg because unlike most genocidal ethnic cleansers, he happens to be a meek American you think you can influence. We must remedy the damage done with speech using ideas and methods that aren't related to speech, somehow. Yes, exactly. Speech doesn't damage things. People damage things. The conflation of speech with physical violence is exactly how you legitimise thuggery on campus, where crazed students are engaging in actual physical violence against people who are just presenting their opinion. And it's never, never, never acceptable to shoot someone who is merely presenting their opinion. This seems to me like someone claiming that we can't do anything about drunk driving because "people need to drive to work." This is a strawman argument nobody ever makes. Drunk driving is a precisely definable and measurable condition with precisely understood outcomes and is trivially avoided. "Bad speech" has no definition at all and thus can't be trivially avoided, as the ever-expanding horizon of what counts as offensive so neatly demonstrates.
chrismcb 7y ago
Free speech is the cornerstone to a free society. You can't have freedom without free speech. Free speech is good, and everyone should strive to keep speech free.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ykevinator 7y ago
But isn't a fair compromise to honor take down requests when the content is demobstrably false?

aeturnum 7y ago

I think your comment and Zuckerberg’s framing of the issue hides the ball in a way that appears dishonest, though I do not think that is your intent. For instance, what do you mean by this?: > But I do think that any cure will be worse than the disease Because it all depends on what "cure" and "disease" mean, right? Free speech is good is blithe and techno-utopian in the sense that it makes a blanket statement that refuses to get into the details and have opinions. Facebook used for ethnic cleansing? Well, free speech is good and Facebook is all bout free speech; the problem has to lie elsewhere. Guess we should fix that ethnic cleansing problem somewhere else. Sticking to a high-level generality implies that, because your basic aim is good we must frame solutions or restrictions in a different way. We must remedy the damage done with speech using ideas and methods that aren't related to speech, somehow. I don't know what is in Zuckerberg’s heart, but it strikes me that this position is extremely kind to Facebook's business model. As long as everyone is committed to unmoderated speech being central to digital spaces, they can avoid expensive moderation. They can also distance themselves from the consequences of the use of the platform they designed and provide. We should not let them do either one of those things. Edit: To use a non-speech example: This seems to me like someone claiming that we can't do anything about drunk driving because "people need to drive to work." Of course, the statement is true and people do need to drive to work. It simply glosses over all of the many changes we can make to how we let people drive that can crack down on drunk driving. It refuses to engage with the issue by asserting a general principle that, actually, does not present any obstacle to regulation and is unresponsive to the critique.

pbreit 7y ago
How could you possibly ever accuse a website of being “used for ethnic cleansing”?
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Have we so forgotten the lessons of the past that we think communications mediums cannot aid in genocide? Look up the role of Joseph Goebbels and the then-nascent radio on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.
- aeturnum 7y ago
  To answer your question directly: if groups engage in ethnic cleansing use a website to plan, coordinate or communicate about how and where to carry out their actions, they are using a website for ethnic cleansing. I encourage you to look into the situation in Myanmar: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
repolfx 7y ago
Facebook used for ethnic cleansing? I'm not sure you should criticise others for hiding the ball or being dishonest when phrasing it like that. Facebook is a website, a pretty trivial one at that. It isn't attached to flying weapons platforms, it doesn't command an army. It cannot be used for ethnic cleansing in any sensible use of English, no more than paper and ink or radio can be "used for ethnic cleansing". So yes - your sarcastic statement is correct. If some African warlord goes nuts and starts mass killing his ethnic rivals, Facebook has sweet FA to do that with that, even if lots of his supporters are posting on Facebook. The problem lies with the people pulling the trigger, the people command them to pull the trigger. Don't try and spread it to Zuckerberg because unlike most genocidal ethnic cleansers, he happens to be a meek American you think you can influence. We must remedy the damage done with speech using ideas and methods that aren't related to speech, somehow. Yes, exactly. Speech doesn't damage things. People damage things. The conflation of speech with physical violence is exactly how you legitimise thuggery on campus, where crazed students are engaging in actual physical violence against people who are just presenting their opinion. And it's never, never, never acceptable to shoot someone who is merely presenting their opinion. This seems to me like someone claiming that we can't do anything about drunk driving because "people need to drive to work." This is a strawman argument nobody ever makes. Drunk driving is a precisely definable and measurable condition with precisely understood outcomes and is trivially avoided. "Bad speech" has no definition at all and thus can't be trivially avoided, as the ever-expanding horizon of what counts as offensive so neatly demonstrates.

chrismcb 7y ago

Free speech is the cornerstone to a free society. You can't have freedom without free speech. Free speech is good, and everyone should strive to keep speech free.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ykevinator 7y ago

But isn't a fair compromise to honor take down requests when the content is demobstrably false?