3 ms·

I see the big issue here as whether people want free speech or not. Technology continues to greatly amplify what a single person can accomplish. A person can gi

I see the big issue here as whether people want free speech or not. Technology continues to greatly amplify what a single person can accomplish. A person can give their opinion, offer advice, relay misinterpreted or misunderstood information, or even outright lie. The point is that free speech is just that -- free and without constraint. If there are going to be limits to free speech, then who gets to set those limits and who enforces the limits? Whoever gets to set those limits and enforce them assumes control over public discussion. I think the point of free speech usually has been to protect the people from unbridled power. Unfortunately, excessive free speech makes the signal-to-noise ratio intolerably low, and free speech itself becomes a weapon used against free speech. Adjudicating free speech is a very hard problem when everyone has the ability to communicate with everyone else. It is not clear that Facebook, even if it were to prioritize ethics over economics, can address the issue in a manner satisfactory to all (or even most) stakeholders.

gedy 6y ago
They want free speech for themselves, not for others. They want to shut up people they hate or disagree with.
xg15 6y ago
A different perspective: If most of the speech is spam, hoaxes and lies, and if as a recipient, I have no meaninful way to detect those, then what value does the speech still have? So if everyone can say whatever they want (which is a good thing), the recipients must have some tools at their disposal to verify whether someone should be listened to or not. > If there are going to be limits to free speech, then who gets to set those limits and who enforces the limits? Denying facts that are backed by the overwhelming majority of scientists would be a good candidate for a limit.
- squibbles 6y ago
  Seeing "facts" and "scientists" in the same sentence makes me uncomfortable. Science is wonderful for exploration, but not so much for adjudication. For example, contrast papers published in peer-reviewed journals with the press releases and news stories that cite those papers.

gedy 6y ago

They want free speech for themselves, not for others. They want to shut up people they hate or disagree with.

xg15 6y ago

A different perspective: If most of the speech is spam, hoaxes and lies, and if as a recipient, I have no meaninful way to detect those, then what value does the speech still have? So if everyone can say whatever they want (which is a good thing), the recipients must have some tools at their disposal to verify whether someone should be listened to or not. > If there are going to be limits to free speech, then who gets to set those limits and who enforces the limits? Denying facts that are backed by the overwhelming majority of scientists would be a good candidate for a limit.

squibbles 6y ago
Seeing "facts" and "scientists" in the same sentence makes me uncomfortable. Science is wonderful for exploration, but not so much for adjudication. For example, contrast papers published in peer-reviewed journals with the press releases and news stories that cite those papers.