4 ms·

You basically just don't believe in free speech. Which is, historically, the more popular position. The idea that ideas should be able to amplified & spread w/o

by dilap 6y ago

You basically just don't believe in free speech. Which is, historically, the more popular position. The idea that ideas should be able to amplified & spread w/o institutional control is rather radical.

burlesona 6y ago
That’s false. There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences. The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Newspapers are liable for libel suits and other legal remedies if they publish false and damaging information. I think it’s fair to consider Facebook a publisher when their algorithms take content and distribute it to the world better than any newspaper could have. That is fundamentally very different from self-hosting one’s own website, or giving a speech in the town square.
- lliamander 6y ago
  > There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences. No. Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Not just free of legal consequences either, but social consequences as well (such as getting fired from your job for having certain political opinions). Free speech =/= first amendment. > The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Which was used as justification to punish anti-war protesters. > Newspapers are liable for libel suits and other legal remedies if they publish false and damaging information. Which is part of a set of well known, long-standing exceptions to the first amendment.
  - vharuck 6y ago
    >Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Only useless speech comes with no consequences. It's pretty much a tautology. I don't see how your definition of "free speech" is useful. In what world would it ever exist?
    - lliamander 6y ago
      Perhaps I wasn't clear. Unless you can voice an opinion with which others disagree without legal or serious social consequences, you do not have free speech.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    Most people probably don't push their definition of free speech that far. If I kick someone out of my house because they are being an asshole, that doesn't feel like an infringement on their free speech to me.
    - lliamander 6y ago
      I didn't say "absolutely" free of consequence, I said "largely". No one is debating about whether you can kick someone out of your house. The kind of "social consequences" that I (and others) are concerned about are things like: - being fired from a job - blacklisted by an industry - canceled by a payment processor - being kicked out of a university Imposing financial consequences for having a difference of opinion is a very insidious way of manipulating public speech. It doesn't actually change people's minds, and is a great way to get preference falsification (like what was seen in the 2016 U.S. presidential election).
- dilap 6y ago
  If you're "free" to do something, but only with consequences, you're not actually free. If you have the belief that the best possible outcomes can be achieved by open discussion of ideas, then any sort of consequences for speech, be it social opprobrium, being blacklisted from jobs, having social media accounts closed, being blacklisted from web-hosting, etc., are all suppressing the open discussion of ideas, and thus bad. There is a continuum; it is possible to have a viewpoint that certain kinds of speech are identifiably negative and it's worth banning them; hence, e.g., laws against slander (or, in the past, indecency). The kinds of restrictions that are now becoming in vogue, however, go far beyond that, and are basically trying to squash politically undesirable viewpoints. I think at that point you've passed anywhere on the continuum that could reasonably be described as "free".
  - burlesona 6y ago
    You're ascribing beliefs to me that I don't hold. There are two fundamentally different things at play here. First, I _do_ believe in freedom of speech, in the sense that any individual should be allowed to say what they think and that should be largely free of legal ramifications. However I do think there are limits to this, and specifically I don't think that you should be allowed to blatantly lie without any risk of consequences. This is the standard that publishers are held to, they can basically publish whatever they want so long as they can demonstrate reasonable evidence that it is true. On the other hand, there is a deeply toxic "thought censorship" going on right now, which I cannot describe as well as this article does: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i... I couldn't be more opposed to this "thought police" movement that is growing largely on the left. But to preserve a reasonable middle ground between "unlimited free speech" which includes blatant deception with no consequences and the Orwellian thought police, we do have to have some standards of what is acceptable and what can get you in trouble. To me that standard is truth supported by evidence. And all I am arguing is that social media should be held to the same standards as traditional media, that when their claims are unsubstantiated they can face legal consequences.
    - dilap 6y ago

by dilap 6y ago

burlesona 6y ago

That’s false. There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences. The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Newspapers are liable for libel suits and other legal remedies if they publish false and damaging information. I think it’s fair to consider Facebook a publisher when their algorithms take content and distribute it to the world better than any newspaper could have. That is fundamentally very different from self-hosting one’s own website, or giving a speech in the town square.

lliamander 6y ago
> There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences. No. Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Not just free of legal consequences either, but social consequences as well (such as getting fired from your job for having certain political opinions). Free speech =/= first amendment. > The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Which was used as justification to punish anti-war protesters. > Newspapers are liable for libel suits and other legal remedies if they publish false and damaging information. Which is part of a set of well known, long-standing exceptions to the first amendment.
- vharuck 6y ago
  >Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Only useless speech comes with no consequences. It's pretty much a tautology. I don't see how your definition of "free speech" is useful. In what world would it ever exist?
  - lliamander 6y ago
    Perhaps I wasn't clear. Unless you can voice an opinion with which others disagree without legal or serious social consequences, you do not have free speech.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  Most people probably don't push their definition of free speech that far. If I kick someone out of my house because they are being an asshole, that doesn't feel like an infringement on their free speech to me.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    I didn't say "absolutely" free of consequence, I said "largely". No one is debating about whether you can kick someone out of your house. The kind of "social consequences" that I (and others) are concerned about are things like: - being fired from a job - blacklisted by an industry - canceled by a payment processor - being kicked out of a university Imposing financial consequences for having a difference of opinion is a very insidious way of manipulating public speech. It doesn't actually change people's minds, and is a great way to get preference falsification (like what was seen in the 2016 U.S. presidential election).
dilap 6y ago
If you're "free" to do something, but only with consequences, you're not actually free. If you have the belief that the best possible outcomes can be achieved by open discussion of ideas, then any sort of consequences for speech, be it social opprobrium, being blacklisted from jobs, having social media accounts closed, being blacklisted from web-hosting, etc., are all suppressing the open discussion of ideas, and thus bad. There is a continuum; it is possible to have a viewpoint that certain kinds of speech are identifiably negative and it's worth banning them; hence, e.g., laws against slander (or, in the past, indecency). The kinds of restrictions that are now becoming in vogue, however, go far beyond that, and are basically trying to squash politically undesirable viewpoints. I think at that point you've passed anywhere on the continuum that could reasonably be described as "free".
- burlesona 6y ago
  You're ascribing beliefs to me that I don't hold. There are two fundamentally different things at play here. First, I _do_ believe in freedom of speech, in the sense that any individual should be allowed to say what they think and that should be largely free of legal ramifications. However I do think there are limits to this, and specifically I don't think that you should be allowed to blatantly lie without any risk of consequences. This is the standard that publishers are held to, they can basically publish whatever they want so long as they can demonstrate reasonable evidence that it is true. On the other hand, there is a deeply toxic "thought censorship" going on right now, which I cannot describe as well as this article does: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i... I couldn't be more opposed to this "thought police" movement that is growing largely on the left. But to preserve a reasonable middle ground between "unlimited free speech" which includes blatant deception with no consequences and the Orwellian thought police, we do have to have some standards of what is acceptable and what can get you in trouble. To me that standard is truth supported by evidence. And all I am arguing is that social media should be held to the same standards as traditional media, that when their claims are unsubstantiated they can face legal consequences.
  - dilap 6y ago