2 ms·

A problem arises when the appetite for 'bad ideas' aren't merely trivial things like whether Rust is better than C++ but rather consist of ideas over which of o

A problem arises when the appetite for 'bad ideas' aren't merely trivial things like whether Rust is better than C++ but rather consist of ideas over which of ones neighbors should be discriminated against, persecuted, imprisoned, or killed. Providing a platform where people who subscribe to these kind of ideas can self-organize, and connect to demagogues who would lead, them is not a virtuous defense of freedom of expression; it is a real threat to the liberties and lives of the people these ideas target. Submerging people in sealed bubble of misinformation that only reinforces their prejudices--as Facebook does through a combination of advertising, recommendations, and control over user timelines--does lead to radicalization and that radicalization can be weaponized in ways that are fatal to others. Just as the right to swing your fists ends at someone else's nose, the right of 'bad ideas' to be amplified by platforms ought to end before people who believe in those 'bad ideas' are turned into political weapons by demagogues and would-be autocrats.

dane-pgp 6y ago
> the right of 'bad ideas' to be amplified by platforms ought to end before people who believe in those 'bad ideas' are turned into political weapons Should a politician be allowed to Tweet that too many people from a particular minority group are moving into the country? (Perhaps the politician believes that these migrants are increasing crime or unemployment). If someone reads that Tweet and then goes and violently attacks people from that minority, have they been turned into a political weapon by a demagogue? With fists and noses, there are well-defined lines, but I'm not sure what speech or algorithms you are suggesting should be outlawed.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Where to draw the line is a very hard question for which I don't have a a definitive answer. Legally, there's precedent that RTLM[0] (Rwandan hate radio) went too far, as the people who ran it were convicted of crimes against humanity. How much lower to set the bar to protect the public while still preserving individual freedom of expression is a question I feel society isn't yet ready to answer. I personally would set the bar at spreading false information. Most of the more vile efforts by demagogues to stir up violence are driven by fabricated propaganda. It's difficult to use facts to incite violence because reality is usually too mundane for people to get violently upset about. Non-factual propaganda, however, can be as lurid as it takes to make people get violent. Keeping outright fabrications out of public view ought to help keep some of these risks contained. It's distasteful, for example, to spread valid statistics that connect immigrant populations with crime (in large part because such statistics, given without context, ignore integration and economic equity issues), but I feel spreading facts is less likely to trigger persecution/violence than feeding vulnerable people with a constant information diet of lies along the lines of 'immigrants eat babies.' As a result, my take on where to draw the line on political speech is 'say what you want as long as it's true.' [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...
bhupy 6y ago
> A problem arises when the appetite for 'bad ideas' aren't merely trivial things like whether Rust is better than C++ but rather consist of ideas over which of ones neighbors should be discriminated against, persecuted, imprisoned, or killed. Sure, but I don't think it's useful to argue about the extremes since a lot of contemporary contention applies toward arguably non-violent ideas. For example, is being in favor of Brexit beyond the pale? How about campaigning for it? How about anti-immigration messaging? How about anti-gun control or anti-abortion? The reality is that the vast majority of the divisive targeted ads on FB are around those hot button issues. Almost nobody sees Holocaust-denial or outright genocide advocacy. > Submerging people in sealed bubble of misinformation that only reinforces their prejudices--as Facebook does through a combination of advertising, recommendations, and control over user timelines--does lead to radicalization and that radicalization can be weaponized in ways that are fatal to others. That's not a Facebook problem, that's a human problem. You either let people consume the ideas they want in a society where information flows freely, or you force people to "eat their vegetables" (so to speak), or prevent people from reading/seeing things that we think are "too dangerous".

dane-pgp 6y ago

> the right of 'bad ideas' to be amplified by platforms ought to end before people who believe in those 'bad ideas' are turned into political weapons Should a politician be allowed to Tweet that too many people from a particular minority group are moving into the country? (Perhaps the politician believes that these migrants are increasing crime or unemployment). If someone reads that Tweet and then goes and violently attacks people from that minority, have they been turned into a political weapon by a demagogue? With fists and noses, there are well-defined lines, but I'm not sure what speech or algorithms you are suggesting should be outlawed.

bleepblorp 6y ago
Where to draw the line is a very hard question for which I don't have a a definitive answer. Legally, there's precedent that RTLM[0] (Rwandan hate radio) went too far, as the people who ran it were convicted of crimes against humanity. How much lower to set the bar to protect the public while still preserving individual freedom of expression is a question I feel society isn't yet ready to answer. I personally would set the bar at spreading false information. Most of the more vile efforts by demagogues to stir up violence are driven by fabricated propaganda. It's difficult to use facts to incite violence because reality is usually too mundane for people to get violently upset about. Non-factual propaganda, however, can be as lurid as it takes to make people get violent. Keeping outright fabrications out of public view ought to help keep some of these risks contained. It's distasteful, for example, to spread valid statistics that connect immigrant populations with crime (in large part because such statistics, given without context, ignore integration and economic equity issues), but I feel spreading facts is less likely to trigger persecution/violence than feeding vulnerable people with a constant information diet of lies along the lines of 'immigrants eat babies.' As a result, my take on where to draw the line on political speech is 'say what you want as long as it's true.' [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...

bhupy 6y ago

> A problem arises when the appetite for 'bad ideas' aren't merely trivial things like whether Rust is better than C++ but rather consist of ideas over which of ones neighbors should be discriminated against, persecuted, imprisoned, or killed. Sure, but I don't think it's useful to argue about the extremes since a lot of contemporary contention applies toward arguably non-violent ideas. For example, is being in favor of Brexit beyond the pale? How about campaigning for it? How about anti-immigration messaging? How about anti-gun control or anti-abortion? The reality is that the vast majority of the divisive targeted ads on FB are around those hot button issues. Almost nobody sees Holocaust-denial or outright genocide advocacy. > Submerging people in sealed bubble of misinformation that only reinforces their prejudices--as Facebook does through a combination of advertising, recommendations, and control over user timelines--does lead to radicalization and that radicalization can be weaponized in ways that are fatal to others. That's not a Facebook problem, that's a human problem. You either let people consume the ideas they want in a society where information flows freely, or you force people to "eat their vegetables" (so to speak), or prevent people from reading/seeing things that we think are "too dangerous".