4 ms·

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 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
  Perhaps I misunderstood your position. Reading your original comment, it is not as I remembered it -- either I misunderstood, or the comment has evolved. Regarding this: > And all I am arguing is that social media should be held to the same standards as traditional media If I were to slander someone on HN, HN should be held responsible? It seems unworkable in practice, since HN is an automated system, more akin to the post office or a public bulletin than a traditional publisher. (Though, obviously, it's sort of in the middle, since they will moderate particularly obnoxious comments.) But if you hold them liable, it would be unreasonable legal risk to assume to allow the comment section to continue to exist, no?
  - burlesona 6y ago
    HN is very actively moderated, so I think it might be able to exist. And presumably things like comment sections would generate “consequences” similar to radio stations that pay relatively small fines when live guests on air say “indecent” things. I think it’s possible that Facebook and Twitter, etc. could not exist under that threat of legal liability. A few years ago I would have said that was unbearable, but now I’m not so sure. The flat earthers and anti-vaxxers of the world worry me. I don’t think they should be prohibited from speech by any stretch, but Facebook and Twitter engagement algorithms lead to echo chambers that amplify radicalism and research has shown how that directly leads to an increasingly angry, divided, polarized citizenry. It’s one thing if we are angry and divided about truth. It’s another if entire cohorts of the population no longer believe in objective reality because the Facebook algorithm serves them a never ending stream of anti-vax untruth. And much worse the hate groups that lead to “doxing” and worse. I don’t know what the appropriate answer is, but I don’t think that the status quo is trending in the direction of a better future for humanity, and I think it’s good for us to be asking tough questions and possibly reconsidering whether some of the newer technologies like social media are, on aggregate, worth the harm they cause.
    - dilap 6y ago
      For me, if someone wants to start a facebook group to talk about flat earth or antivax or any other crazy thing they believe, their freedom as humans to have that conversation trumps other concerns, but you can certainly argue credibly there are dangers and downsides. To me it does not seem qualitatively different than the printing press or allowing physical freedom of association. The invention of the printing press is indirectly responsible for quite a bit of upheaval!

by dilap 6y ago

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
Perhaps I misunderstood your position. Reading your original comment, it is not as I remembered it -- either I misunderstood, or the comment has evolved. Regarding this: > And all I am arguing is that social media should be held to the same standards as traditional media If I were to slander someone on HN, HN should be held responsible? It seems unworkable in practice, since HN is an automated system, more akin to the post office or a public bulletin than a traditional publisher. (Though, obviously, it's sort of in the middle, since they will moderate particularly obnoxious comments.) But if you hold them liable, it would be unreasonable legal risk to assume to allow the comment section to continue to exist, no?
- burlesona 6y ago
  HN is very actively moderated, so I think it might be able to exist. And presumably things like comment sections would generate “consequences” similar to radio stations that pay relatively small fines when live guests on air say “indecent” things. I think it’s possible that Facebook and Twitter, etc. could not exist under that threat of legal liability. A few years ago I would have said that was unbearable, but now I’m not so sure. The flat earthers and anti-vaxxers of the world worry me. I don’t think they should be prohibited from speech by any stretch, but Facebook and Twitter engagement algorithms lead to echo chambers that amplify radicalism and research has shown how that directly leads to an increasingly angry, divided, polarized citizenry. It’s one thing if we are angry and divided about truth. It’s another if entire cohorts of the population no longer believe in objective reality because the Facebook algorithm serves them a never ending stream of anti-vax untruth. And much worse the hate groups that lead to “doxing” and worse. I don’t know what the appropriate answer is, but I don’t think that the status quo is trending in the direction of a better future for humanity, and I think it’s good for us to be asking tough questions and possibly reconsidering whether some of the newer technologies like social media are, on aggregate, worth the harm they cause.
  - dilap 6y ago
    For me, if someone wants to start a facebook group to talk about flat earth or antivax or any other crazy thing they believe, their freedom as humans to have that conversation trumps other concerns, but you can certainly argue credibly there are dangers and downsides. To me it does not seem qualitatively different than the printing press or allowing physical freedom of association. The invention of the printing press is indirectly responsible for quite a bit of upheaval!