5 ms·

> promote dangerous content I'm definitely biased here, but "dangerous" content does not exist -- only dangerous people. But then again, I get called a "free s

> promote dangerous content I'm definitely biased here, but "dangerous" content does not exist -- only dangerous people. But then again, I get called a "free speech extremist" nowadays so what do I know?

Barrin92 6y ago
not sure what this is supposed to be other than a platitude. So dangerous weapons and dangerous viruses don't exist either? I think free speech extremism is apt as a description here because a sort of worldview where only humans have agency is extremely mistaken.
- iamstupidsimple 6y ago
  Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    That's an entirely different argument altogether. Of course one is free to tolerate harm or accept danger in exchange for freedom, but that doesn't imply that ideas or speech cannot be dangerous, or that platforms that mediate speech don't change or weaponise discourse in certain ways, many of which are harmful. And it should be pointed out that most societies don't agree with this at all, and as is becoming more evident, neither does the American society in general. In this era of modern mass communication there hasn't been any social consensus on the nature or acceptance of speech, it's a purely inherited position, ironically enough.
  - nogabebop23 6y ago
    >> Freedom isn't free. that's true. There's a hefty f'in fee. Everyone has to chip in their buck-o-five
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny. That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. Real free speech involves identifying the sources of lies and falsehoods and working to eliminate or minimize their effects.
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      > > Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny. > That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools? I've italicized the differences. You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a straw man.
      - ardy42 6y ago
        >> That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. > You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a straw man. Yes I am. If we're "free speech extremists" who believe "freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of 'fake news' or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny." Why should we tolerate the tyranny of restricting the free speech rights of a conspiracy theorist teacher? Shouldn't we rely on the students' critical thinking and willingly pay the price if it turns out to be inadequate? > Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools? Yes we can, and I was indirectly alluding to that. Free speech means people are allowed to spread conspiracy theories in public, but that doesn't mean society can't recognize conspiracy theories are detrimental and take action to retard their spread (such as the government firing a conspiracy theorist teacher or taking antitrust action against social media platforms). Free speech doesn't mean a particular amplification mechanism has to exist and be tolerated.
paulgb 6y ago
Would you at least agree that how content is promoted could be dangerous? For example, recommender systems that promote pro-bulemia content to teenage girls or pro-terrorism content to disaffected youth? They are things Facebook and Google have been accused of.
- iamstupidsimple 6y ago
  If people were empowered with critical thinking instead of being hamstrung by the shitty education system, then we wouldn't have this problem. Anyway, transparency is key and I'd be more than happy if all targeted ads had to reveal their audiences to prevent abuse like you're describing.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    Typically bulemia and terrorism content isn't promoted through paid advertisements. A lot of problems in the world if we could wave a magic wand and give everyone critical thinking skills, but without that wand, throwing every vulnerable teenager into the deep end of toxic content will mean that some drown.

Barrin92 6y ago

not sure what this is supposed to be other than a platitude. So dangerous weapons and dangerous viruses don't exist either? I think free speech extremism is apt as a description here because a sort of worldview where only humans have agency is extremely mistaken.

iamstupidsimple 6y ago
Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  That's an entirely different argument altogether. Of course one is free to tolerate harm or accept danger in exchange for freedom, but that doesn't imply that ideas or speech cannot be dangerous, or that platforms that mediate speech don't change or weaponise discourse in certain ways, many of which are harmful. And it should be pointed out that most societies don't agree with this at all, and as is becoming more evident, neither does the American society in general. In this era of modern mass communication there hasn't been any social consensus on the nature or acceptance of speech, it's a purely inherited position, ironically enough.
- nogabebop23 6y ago
  >> Freedom isn't free. that's true. There's a hefty f'in fee. Everyone has to chip in their buck-o-five
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny. That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. Real free speech involves identifying the sources of lies and falsehoods and working to eliminate or minimize their effects.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    > > Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny. > That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools? I've italicized the differences. You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a straw man.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      >> That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. > You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a straw man. Yes I am. If we're "free speech extremists" who believe "freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of 'fake news' or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny." Why should we tolerate the tyranny of restricting the free speech rights of a conspiracy theorist teacher? Shouldn't we rely on the students' critical thinking and willingly pay the price if it turns out to be inadequate? > Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools? Yes we can, and I was indirectly alluding to that. Free speech means people are allowed to spread conspiracy theories in public, but that doesn't mean society can't recognize conspiracy theories are detrimental and take action to retard their spread (such as the government firing a conspiracy theorist teacher or taking antitrust action against social media platforms). Free speech doesn't mean a particular amplification mechanism has to exist and be tolerated.

paulgb 6y ago

Would you at least agree that how content is promoted could be dangerous? For example, recommender systems that promote pro-bulemia content to teenage girls or pro-terrorism content to disaffected youth? They are things Facebook and Google have been accused of.

iamstupidsimple 6y ago
If people were empowered with critical thinking instead of being hamstrung by the shitty education system, then we wouldn't have this problem. Anyway, transparency is key and I'd be more than happy if all targeted ads had to reveal their audiences to prevent abuse like you're describing.
- paulgb 6y ago
  Typically bulemia and terrorism content isn't promoted through paid advertisements. A lot of problems in the world if we could wave a magic wand and give everyone critical thinking skills, but without that wand, throwing every vulnerable teenager into the deep end of toxic content will mean that some drown.