4 ms·
In the US, we call these bureaucrats "judges", and the falsehoods they might combat "libel" and "defamation". No it's not the same, but this doesn't exactly so
by emn13 7y ago
In the US, we call these bureaucrats "judges", and the falsehoods they might combat "libel" and "defamation". No it's not the same, but this doesn't exactly sound like 1984 either.
Frankly, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that there's some form of pushback against falsehoods, even for political falsehoods. The risks are overblown; it's not like we don't already have a system of checks & balances for stuff like this - a little more judicial application might help. People imply that the distinction between truth and falsehood is a matter of opinion, and you're doing that too by phrasing things like "bureaucrats decide what is fake and what is the ultimate truth". And yes: if you distill it down to a completely binary choice, there's probably some token of opinion in pretty much any case that matters. But that's a ridiculous oversimplification. Just because there's some tiny amount of opinion in anything, doesn't mean there isn't a significant portion of fairly objective observation in many statements. The plain facts matter too; not just the opinion, and it's just not all that hard to identify lies regardless of opinion. So: yes there are cornercases, but throwing the whole concept of objective fact out of the window because some small details are unclear is ridiculous.
In any case, content platforms -like facebook- do some of this kind of thing internally, without (as much) oversight, with far more impact, even if it's subtler.
Just because it's possible to abuse censorship doesn't mean every possible quality filter must necessarily turn out horrible. Just because opinions may differ doesn't mean there aren't considerable agreements about what's true (and those truths matter, too!). In terms of risks: there's no reason not to spot check + audit; no reason for the moderation to be secret; no reason for the information itself to be completely suppressed (simply not regurgitated without caveats) - all kinds of reasons why this isn't necessarily a problem, and it's IMNSHO obvious that nowadays noise is far more harmful to rational discourse than explicit censorship; and as censorship goes the implicit censorship of unchecked social bubbles is more likely to be misleading than explicit censorship.
Btw, I don't know enough about the singeporean system to have an opinion either way: but this casual disdain for anything that even reeks of censorship just doesn't make any sense.
- Mirioron 7y ago>In the US, we call these bureaucrats "judges", and the falsehoods they might combat "libel" and "defamation". No it's not the same, but this doesn't exactly sound like 1984 either. Libel laws in the US are incredibly weak. It's very difficult for a public figure to win a case of defamation against them. But even if that weren't so, the justice system is pretty broken. If you can't afford a lawyer then your outlook isn't good. If that same system starts deciding what is and isn't true then you essentially have a system where poor people are liars. >and it's IMNSHO obvious that nowadays noise is far more harmful to rational discourse than explicit censorship How can you tell? Things that are actually explicitly censored are things you might not even find out about. The US has secret courts and puts gag orders on those that are in there. Yet people aren't outraged about it. I think the disdain for censorship isn't strong enough.
- emn13 7y agoI don't disagree with what you're saying; but the problem sounds more like one of execution than of principle. The US has way too many bad restraints on speech for the wrong reasons; and not enough weaker limitations for more objective reasons. Personally, I think libel laws around are still way too strong in the US; and misguided to start with - but to the extent that they target not merely negative but factually false statements - probably not a bad idea. Just - the legal system should not be involved; not even as a last recourse. It's just way too slow and heavy-handed. We need something much, much lighter; consider e.g. the consequences imposed by a downvote on HN or stackoverflow: not exactly a lot, but still not entirely without effect. Something mild and focused explicitly not on opinion (so not like HN/SO ;-)) but merely on falsehoods would be much less harmful that what we have now, and much more beneficial too.
- niij 7y ago> this doesn't exactly sound like 1984 You don't see the parallels between a Minister of Truth dictating what is true versus the plot line of 1984?
- emn13 7y agoYeah, parallels sort of like a triangle is made of parallel lines. Only if you stretch the analogy beyond all meaning. I mean seriously, at that point any teacher correcting their student is 1984 for pointing out any mistakes. Sure - this might be a step in that direction. But so far? Seriously, give me a break. When there's no recourse, corrections are secret rather than transparent, there's no public audit - then come back and complain. Not that the law sounds brilliant or anything, but equating everything to 1984 simply devalues that comparison to the point of meaninglessness.