5 ms·

I agree wholeheartedly: the "right to free speech" is not the same as a "right to be heard", but we have managed to conflate the two with all of this "free ampl

by saurik 6y ago

I agree wholeheartedly: the "right to free speech" is not the same as a "right to be heard", but we have managed to conflate the two with all of this "free amplification", as you describe; there is a big difference between someone getting to say something to their followers and that content being broadcast and even recommended by Twitter to random people. I personally believe that if a website has a recommendation algorithm that should be considered an editorial decision they are making and they should be liable for the content they recommend (and much more so than they are today: the same level of standard we hold a newspaper to should apply); but, if a user merely posts something and people have to actively choose to follow the poster, then that's on them (as the website is acting as a utility connecting consenting parties). Doing it like this (which might even be the status quo of the law if Section 230 is repealed, btw) changes what kinds of apps can be built and what businesses models are viable "at scale", but almost certainly for the better: apps that work like how Instagram used to--where you just saw content from exactly who you followed in the order they posted it... something many (if not maybe even most) users preferred but which was clearly less profitable for Facebook--seem like they should be fine and you should get to post whatever you want to the people who opted in to hear what you had to say. People who generally like recommendation systems try to defend all of their algorithmic amplification, and then the sometimes-arbitrary-feeling censorship seemingly required to make them universally viable, but here we see Twitter taking the ridiculously extreme position to even block private messages... the regulatory fallout of this political decision is going to be fascinating to watch.

codelord 6y ago
I believe the vast majority of the content you see on Twitter and pretty much everything you see on Facebook is from people you follow (ads excluded). Twitter/FB though use an algorithmic feed mechanism to reorder the posts which makes sense. I think they should be transparent about how they generate the feed, but I don't think you can hold them accountable for the content of a post someone made just because it got reordered to the top by an algorithm.
- saluk 6y ago
  There are multiple levels. While I like the idea of separating seeing only what my followers post and seeing other posts, it gets really blurry when the people I follow are clicking the "like" and "retweet" buttons. I would guestimate around 30% or more of my twitter feed are posts people I follow have liked or retweeted rather than posted on their own. And the network can make that happen on its own, without an algorithm reordering content - if someone I follow is retweeting something that someone they follow retweeted.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  Well that's not the full story is it? They actively blocked, with human knowledge a post. They definitely editorialized that. No algorithm involved.
  - wslack 6y ago
    The block is only needed because of the amplification. If tweets and posts showed up chronologically vs from ML-driven engines to identifying the most grabbing content, we wouldn't be systemically hyper-charging emotionally hooking misinformation. You don't need to unplug the bullhorn if there is no bullhorn.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Twitter also blocked the article in DMs, which do show up chronologically rather than through ML.
    - camelite 6y ago
      Nobody's systematically hyper charging emotionally hooking anything. This is or rather, without the artificial suppression, would be completely 100% organically viral. It shouldn't be up to absolutely obviously partisan corporations to decide which October surprise info dump is misinformation deserving of censorship, and which is the aok rough and tumble of presidential electioneering. Finally, on the facts, the Steele dossier was far more obviously fraudulent than pictures of hunter smoking a crack pipe in the bathtub...
jorblumesea 6y ago
If you choose to follow disinformation posted by a hostile nation state, is that a right to free speech or free amplification? What if those voices argue harmful or destructive effects on you and your society? I guess the line is so blurred because often these aren't "people" but often institutions, governments and those intending to shape public opinion, even bots in some cases. You're talking about it like Twitter is censoring someone specifically but it's so much more complicated and nuanced than that.
kevin_nisbet 6y ago
I'm also curious on another aspect, as I don't believe "right to free speech" is meant in any way to imply a lack of liability for damages caused by that speech. If I convince millions of people that Example companies widgets kills kittens, when I have no reason to believe that to be the case, I would be held liable for the damage to the brand. But the pseudo-anonymous nature of the internet and most platforms, and even trying to avoid problems like the Streisand effect allow damaging speech to avoid consequence. I'm not advocating for any approach to fix the problem, this is just a curiosity of mine as of late.
- phkahler 6y ago
  It's sad that mainstream media outlets even get away with slander in politics. Everything is twisted either to fit their views or just to make outlandish headlines to get clicks.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  > I'm also curious on another aspect, as I don't believe "right to free speech" is meant in any way to imply a lack of liability for damages caused by that speech. It depends what you meant. The law doesn't give carte blanche to say whatever you want, however you want, either. Your example above is what libel and slander laws are about. People make (probably millions) of false claims about companies daily and none of them rise to the level of a credible accusation largely because they're done anonymously. Someone who could actually "convince millions of people" probably has at least SOMETHING damning, and if they don't, the backpressure from everyone else is going to be pretty intense. That's actually _normal_. Desirable. _Some_ speech _does_ require freedom from damage because otherwise the direct effect is the chilling effect. Political speech is specifically one type of such speech. The internet really has forced us to look carefully at what kinds of speech warrant that protection and which don't and we clearly haven't figured it out yet. But certainly giving that power to private companies - and removing it from the hands of the people, the government, the law, the courts, and posterity -- is _definitively not_ the right way to do it.
  - kevin_nisbet 6y ago
nradov 6y ago
Liable in what sense? Who would have standing to sue? The New York Post hasn't suffered any damages. (US courts don't consider loss of potential revenue from hypothetical newspaper sales or web traffic to be damages.)

by saurik 6y ago

codelord 6y ago

I believe the vast majority of the content you see on Twitter and pretty much everything you see on Facebook is from people you follow (ads excluded). Twitter/FB though use an algorithmic feed mechanism to reorder the posts which makes sense. I think they should be transparent about how they generate the feed, but I don't think you can hold them accountable for the content of a post someone made just because it got reordered to the top by an algorithm.

saluk 6y ago
There are multiple levels. While I like the idea of separating seeing only what my followers post and seeing other posts, it gets really blurry when the people I follow are clicking the "like" and "retweet" buttons. I would guestimate around 30% or more of my twitter feed are posts people I follow have liked or retweeted rather than posted on their own. And the network can make that happen on its own, without an algorithm reordering content - if someone I follow is retweeting something that someone they follow retweeted.
ethanwillis 6y ago
Well that's not the full story is it? They actively blocked, with human knowledge a post. They definitely editorialized that. No algorithm involved.
- wslack 6y ago
  The block is only needed because of the amplification. If tweets and posts showed up chronologically vs from ML-driven engines to identifying the most grabbing content, we wouldn't be systemically hyper-charging emotionally hooking misinformation. You don't need to unplug the bullhorn if there is no bullhorn.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Twitter also blocked the article in DMs, which do show up chronologically rather than through ML.
  - camelite 6y ago
    Nobody's systematically hyper charging emotionally hooking anything. This is or rather, without the artificial suppression, would be completely 100% organically viral. It shouldn't be up to absolutely obviously partisan corporations to decide which October surprise info dump is misinformation deserving of censorship, and which is the aok rough and tumble of presidential electioneering. Finally, on the facts, the Steele dossier was far more obviously fraudulent than pictures of hunter smoking a crack pipe in the bathtub...

jorblumesea 6y ago

If you choose to follow disinformation posted by a hostile nation state, is that a right to free speech or free amplification? What if those voices argue harmful or destructive effects on you and your society? I guess the line is so blurred because often these aren't "people" but often institutions, governments and those intending to shape public opinion, even bots in some cases. You're talking about it like Twitter is censoring someone specifically but it's so much more complicated and nuanced than that.

kevin_nisbet 6y ago

I'm also curious on another aspect, as I don't believe "right to free speech" is meant in any way to imply a lack of liability for damages caused by that speech. If I convince millions of people that Example companies widgets kills kittens, when I have no reason to believe that to be the case, I would be held liable for the damage to the brand. But the pseudo-anonymous nature of the internet and most platforms, and even trying to avoid problems like the Streisand effect allow damaging speech to avoid consequence. I'm not advocating for any approach to fix the problem, this is just a curiosity of mine as of late.

phkahler 6y ago
It's sad that mainstream media outlets even get away with slander in politics. Everything is twisted either to fit their views or just to make outlandish headlines to get clicks.
RonanTheGrey 6y ago
> I'm also curious on another aspect, as I don't believe "right to free speech" is meant in any way to imply a lack of liability for damages caused by that speech. It depends what you meant. The law doesn't give carte blanche to say whatever you want, however you want, either. Your example above is what libel and slander laws are about. People make (probably millions) of false claims about companies daily and none of them rise to the level of a credible accusation largely because they're done anonymously. Someone who could actually "convince millions of people" probably has at least SOMETHING damning, and if they don't, the backpressure from everyone else is going to be pretty intense. That's actually _normal_. Desirable. _Some_ speech _does_ require freedom from damage because otherwise the direct effect is the chilling effect. Political speech is specifically one type of such speech. The internet really has forced us to look carefully at what kinds of speech warrant that protection and which don't and we clearly haven't figured it out yet. But certainly giving that power to private companies - and removing it from the hands of the people, the government, the law, the courts, and posterity -- is _definitively not_ the right way to do it.
- kevin_nisbet 6y ago

nradov 6y ago

Liable in what sense? Who would have standing to sue? The New York Post hasn't suffered any damages. (US courts don't consider loss of potential revenue from hypothetical newspaper sales or web traffic to be damages.)