10 ms·

Society is misdiagnosing the issue here. It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of

Society is misdiagnosing the issue here. It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. As long as media companies get the most benefit from people engaging with content, they will continue to promote information that is damaging to society. It may even be true information but when the goal is engagement, it's purpose will be to enrage and divide because that's what's engaging. Limiting speech will not cause this issue to go away. It's bigger than just misinformation. The core issue is the underlying system that values engagement over all things. That is, the advertising system. Companies that make their money selling ads while providing content to engage have a perverse incentive to make society worse. This is the bad seed that needs removal. This business model should be illegal. It's already trivially unethical.

gatvol 6y ago
I think you have the core of the issue here.
kurthr 6y ago
I take your meaning as, what we see on social media is not Free Speech, it is advertising subsidized Commercially Promoted Speech. That also means that preventing the promoted distribution is not limiting Free Speech (although as a private business they could do that with some liability as well). Basically, the people complaining that their speech is being blocked were allowed to select the terms for debate based on their chosen meanings. Maybe the meaning of Free Speech as standing on a box in the town square needs to be taken back... but the Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech so it seems like that boat has sailed (for commercial and political reasons).
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Netflix doesn't sell ads (and doesn't rely on user-generated content, so they can't really threaten democracy), but if you read interviews with executives, they also seem to be optimizing for maximum time spent on the service. Apple, too, reportedly told developers it's increasingly looking for Apple Arcade games that will "keep users hooked" over a long period. [1] Consequently, I'm not convinced removing ad-supported media will fix the problem of companies optimizing for engagement at all costs. Humans are stupid, and so we're more willing to pay for services where we spend lots of time, irrespective of the quality of that time. --- 1: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/30/apple-arcade-game-strategy-shift/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/30/apple-arcade-game-strat...
- zapita 6y ago
  The difference is that TV shows and video games are clearly entertainment, so you know what to expect. It’s possible for a fictional TV show or video game to manipulate you, but it’s harder because you know what you’re experiencing isn’t real. Social media is more dangerous because it can warp your perception of reality: what is happening in the world, what people think and care about in your neighborhood and your country; what is a scientific fact and what is up for debate; which politician is trustworthy and which isn’t. There is no boundary to what aspect of your life Facebook or Google can manipulate. With an ad business model, they are incentivized to expand the scope of manipulation further and further, since their ability to influence you is literally what they sell.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    I agree. The question is, if Facebook relied on paid subscriptions instead of ads, would they have designed their algorithm differently? I think they'd still optimize for engagement / time spent on site.
    - zapita 6y ago
      Sure but they would not be infested with conspiracy theories and fake accounts because those would be worthless. So instead of our parents being lobotomized by QAnon, they would still be inviting us to their Zynga farm game so they can unlock the pumpkin patch extension. Still scammy but less destructive to democratic institutions and free will as we know it. The ad business model is not just about selling engagement, it’s about creating an ecosystem enabling the worst players to make the most money, while the platforms at the center keep their hands clean. Google started this tradition with malware search bars and shady affiliates; Facebook and Youtube just took it to the next level. None of that shit is profitable with subscriptions.
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        > Sure but they would not be infested with conspiracy theories and fake accounts because those would be worthless. Why? How are those conspiracy theories connected to advertising? They're not worthless insofar as they cause users to spend more time on Facebook. And Facebook would want to optimize for time spent on their site regardless of whether it was to keep users paying or to show them more ads.
tshaddox 6y ago
I agree with your diagnosis, but perhaps not your treatment plan. You seem to think that making the social networks’ business model illegal would not be a violation of free speech, but that the social networks limiting distribution of misinformation would be a violation of free speech. Am I interpreting you correctly?
- strawberrypuree 6y ago
  No lucid assessment of “free speech” entertains a definition that includes “the use of machine learning to target messages to individuals in order to make money.” In the same way me sitting outside your house watching when you come and go to determine the best time to place a political flier on your door so you’ll see it when I want you to, surveillance capitalism it not free speech.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    So you can't use machine learning.... can you use psychology to craft your message? Can you do surveys and gather demographic data to choose where to target? You obviously think there is a line where you can no longer use tools to craft your message, but I am not sure where you would draw it. I feel like any argument you make against machine learning is going to be able to also be used against something like the printing press. Couldn't people have said, "clearly, using a machine to make thousands of copies of your text is unfair and an abuse of free speech... you need to write your words by hand like the rest of us!"
    - crpatino 6y ago
      For what is worth, I think psychological manipulation is the real bad. Machine learning is just a force multiplier.
    - MinusGix 6y ago
      Like a lot of issues you'll likely need to choose a Schelling point (arbitrary cutoff). Some of it is simple inconveniences. It is a lot harder to learn enough psychology, understand your audience, and so on to influence them in comparison to having a program that scans every word they've put on their [social media account here] to decide how best to convince them. That would likely stop a good amount of actors. If a quite small amount of people had access to and were using the printing press, then that might legitimately be an argument for the government in that country to ban it as it gives them more power over others. Though, once it becomes common and non-secret technology then everyone has been amplified the same way. Now, that 'give everyone the ability to use machine learning to tailor their text to the audience' could be a route your could attempt, but I don't think it makes as much sense for machine learning even if I could imagine a society that has that.
desipis 6y ago
> The core issue is the underlying system that values engagement over all things ... the advertising system. I don't think you're digging deep enough here. It's not the business model. It's the technology. We've invented technology that can, to a significant degree, control people. It is as addictive as hard drugs and people will just keep coming back to their dealer for more and more digital crack. But it's worse than simply heroin or crack cocaine. It gives the dealers not just the power to keep people coming back for more, but also gives them far, far more control over not just what those people do, but what those people think. The large companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) aren't in the business of search or social media. Nor are they in the business of advertisement. Their business model is selling complete control over people at the population level. At some point it will stop being a business model and start being a self sustaining model of raw power that strips us of our humanity. We need to take a hard stance to all attempts at psychological manipulation via technology. A/B testing to see how changes affect behaviour should be seen as morally repugnant as selling crack cocaine to children.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > I don't think you're digging deep enough here. It's not the business model. It's the technology. I don't think you're digging deep enough here. It's not the technology. It's the people. Meaning not just the people running companies, but all of us. Technology is a tool. Any tool can be used for nefarious purposes, or for beneficial purposes. Which kind it gets used for depends on the people who use it, and on the people who are creating the environment in which the people using the tools operate. I don't dispute that most of the people who are running large companies (not even limited to social media companies) are amoral and will do anything to make more money, including manipulating other people's thoughts and opinions. But such people can only thrive in an environment where there are lots of other people who are susceptible to their manipulation. There will always be nefarious people in the world. But there is no rule that says there have to be enough other people who are susceptible to them to enable them to thrive. I don't disagree that people who make money through lies and manipulation should be punished. But I think we all need to take a step back and ask why such people are able to thrive in our society to this extent. At some point the rest of society needs to take some responsibility for not being susceptible to liars and crooks.
pdonis 6y ago
> Companies that make their money selling ads Which includes...the New York Times. And all other media companies. > This business model should be illegal. It's already trivially unethical. By this criterion, pretty much all newspapers that have ever existed should be illegal. Also pretty much all TV channels. If this is a problem, it's been a problem since long before Facebook and Twitter.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- thesagan 6y ago
  It's a problem. Been one since the Spanish-American war. Some of the biggest source of advertising revenues for news media organizations comes from defense companies. The New York Times pushed for the Iraq war, for example. They fired journalists who reported dovish news, too. Many others left to report as freelancers so they could paint more accurate pictures in smaller publications. Similarly, MSNBC will bring on ex-Pentagon officials to "analyze" current events, but they don't bring in ex-State Department officials. There are likely patterns and incentives here. "Follow the money" as they like to say.
  - jdkee 6y ago
    I don't see a lot of military or defense contractor ads in the NYT.
    - wyre 6y ago
      It could very well be a ‘here’s a check if you keep our names off your tongue’ situation. I have no idea though. I don’t read the Times/I use an addblock
- glial 6y ago
  Yeah, there’s a terrible conflict of interest between informing the public and selling advertising. There has been for a long time. It’s just worse now. We should figure out how to fix it rather than throw up our hands.
jseliger 6y ago
It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. Try teaching non-elite undergrads sometime, and particularly assignments that require some sense of epistemology, and you'll discover that the vast majority of people have pretty poor personal epistemic hygiene—it's not much required in most people, most of the time, in most jobs. We evolved to form tribes, not to be "right." Jonathan's Haidt's The Righteous Mind deals with this topic well. https://jakeseliger.com/2012/03/25/jonathan-haidts-the-righteous-mind-and-what-were-really-arguing-about https://jakeseliger.com/2012/03/25/jonathan-haidts-the-right...
- trophycase 6y ago
  This, I keep saying this. It's not a question of truth, it was never really a question of truth. It's about who is saying what.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
    In my experience this is 100% the case. If someone doesn't like you, no matter what you do or the rationality of what you say will not change their opinion of you unless it saves them from undue harm.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  Are undergrads from elite universities any different from your experience?
  - aaron-santos 6y ago
    It's likely worse. Their ability to rationalize may be higher.
- petermcneeley 6y ago
  I think some concrete examples would be nice.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
specialist 6y ago
"... unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement." Correct. The Freedom Speeches™ food fight is just a useful distraction, to head off any structural reforms. Similarly, all the pearl clutching over fact checking and truthiness and bias is completely misguided, serving to crowd out useful technical reforms. Actual journalism (reporting) is very simple: - Share your data. - Cite your sources. - Sign your work. Any medium claiming to be "news" must have built-in support.
kofejnik 6y ago
highly relevant fiction (fiction?): https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
ABCLAW 6y ago
>It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. Unchecked free speech has always been an issue, which is why even in America, where free speech occupies one of the highest rankings of competing social virtues by dint of history, there are still a litany of narrow carve outs. Do you lie to your business parters in the context of a transaction? We hit you with fraud, misrepresentation, or any number of torts. Do you threaten someone with bodily harm? Oh boy. Cyberbullying? Depending on your state, that might be a problem. Lying while under oath or to a federal agent? That's potentially a few years behind bars. So yes, unrestricted 'say anything lmao' free speech does not exist. It has never existed. It will never exist. Everyone who does us the disservice of trotting it out as if it does exist is creating a strawman which distracts us from a more honest conversation. Which isn't 'should there be a line at all?' It's 'where should that line be drawn?'
- armatav 6y ago
  No - it's "there should be no line at all". Even a minor concession is the beginning of a total defeat. In all of those instances you listed there are circumstances above and beyond the contextual meaning of free-speech in the above posters reply.
  - d23 6y ago
    Your first sentence is obviously ridiculous given the examples the poster gave. I don’t know what the second sentence even means.
- unishark 6y ago
  Speech in freedom of speech refers to the communication of ideas and opinions, not all communication. The term "freedom of expression" is commonly used to clarify this. Lying to your partner is not a crime. Taking their money under those circumstances is the crime.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    But again, this is just the status quo. Why is lying to someone to take their money a crime, but lying to someone to influence an election not? What makes money worth special protections, but voting not?
thayne 6y ago
I'm curious what kind of business model would incentivize providing accurate, balanced information over spectacle and divisiveness.
- BuyMyBitcoins 6y ago
  It would depend on recommendation algorithms actively promoting that balanced content.
- dimator 6y ago
  None. That's the problem. We've reached a point where the very engine of humanity's growth, capitalism, has revealed a huge vulnerability in its design.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    That flaw was apparent generations ago; yellow journalism isn't a product of the internet age. Capitalism also isn't the fundamental engine of hunanity’s growth, just a fairly recent stage in the development of economic systems that is likely as transitional as all the past stages.
hechang1997 6y ago
Yes, currently the 2nd amendment only guarentees that no censorship comes from government. We need a stronger guarantee: no censorship on any public discourse from any party. Not any kind, because even well intentioned censorship causes problems! Using reddit as an example: suppose there is a subreddit A that discuss news and politics, and the mods ban racist comments. If you are a racist, will you change your racist way if you found your post banned? No, of course not. You would just be indignant and find/make another subreddit B that is more tolerant of racism. The subreddit B is provided the same tools subreddit A uses for censoring racist posts, and abuse these tools to censor any voices that argue against racism. You can no longer be convinced to abandon racism because you are stuck in your comfort zone and anyone who argue against racism are just SJW or special snowflakes in your eyes and their opinions are automatically dismissed by your brain.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- taxicab 6y ago
  Unless you are planning to gun down some state censors, then I'm guessing you mean the first amendment.
  - hechang1997 6y ago
    Ops... Brain just shortcut
goBackwards00 6y ago
You want this to be illegal? Get to work on it. The subtle underlying problem is all the people out there curating cogent arguments about the problem on social media, meaning countless hours spent avoiding the legwork. Hi HN. Hi Reddit. Hi Facebook. Hi tech workers who have to constantly re-invent the wheel. I’m sick of “both sides” and every one in between projecting and deflecting. You all want to look at the problem in society, look in the mirror, cause you’re a part of it too. Say and do other things rather than demand other people do and say other things. American people and politicians are on the same page: nothing is my fault, and it’s only my problem if I get paid for fixing it.
clusterfish 6y ago
You think billionaire magnates and state actors who fund a lot of this divisive content care about advertising profits? No, in fact they have the deepest pockets and will be the last ones standing regardless on what you do with twitter and such. They don't need twitter, its focus on engagement just makes their efforts more cost effective. Cut that off and they'll refocus on buying national and local TV networks or whatever else gets eyeballs and attention.
blockmeifyoucan 6y ago
Advertising needs to go away. All moral arguments aside, humanity can no longer afford to spend so much energy on something with so little benefit.
non-cotton 6y ago
I think this has a lot to do with the platforms vs. publishers issue, and the Section 230 dustup we're about to see. IMO any platform whose owners have enough editorial control for these engagment-hacking techniques to be useful (the ability to decide what gets seen, what doesn't, and who sees what) should be treated as a publisher, not a platform. This doesn't have to kill online communities generally. As long as we can distinguish between editorial control and freedom of association (i.e. the ability to ban rule-breakers and people we don't like) I don't see why effective moderation wouldn't be possible.
disown 6y ago
> Society is misdiagnosing the issue here. I think you are being a bit generous here. It isn't society doing the diagnosing. It's just a group of highly privileged individuals. It's one disinformation entity demanding privileged position in the disinformation space. All state propagandists complain about disinformation. Whether it is the bbc or chinese propaganda organizations or russian or whatever. They all claim to be worried about and fight against disinformation just like the nytimes. After all, if you are fighting disinformation, then you must not be party to disinformation. But we all know that's a lie. > That is, the advertising system. Nope. Disinformation/propaganda/yellow journalism/etc predates the modern age of advertisement. In the past, newspapers were funded by wealthy business people, politicians or government. And they were all created to further the aims of their creator via propaganda. Ask yourself who created the nytimes and why? > This business model should be illegal. Nope. You are being misled by disinformation. It's not the business model or the profit generating mechanism. It's the nature of the business itself. News/media/etc exist to manipulate people. It was created to tell people how they should think or feel about events. To guide the herd. Also, engagement was important long before social media.

gatvol 6y ago

I think you have the core of the issue here.

kurthr 6y ago

I take your meaning as, what we see on social media is not Free Speech, it is advertising subsidized Commercially Promoted Speech. That also means that preventing the promoted distribution is not limiting Free Speech (although as a private business they could do that with some liability as well). Basically, the people complaining that their speech is being blocked were allowed to select the terms for debate based on their chosen meanings. Maybe the meaning of Free Speech as standing on a box in the town square needs to be taken back... but the Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech so it seems like that boat has sailed (for commercial and political reasons).

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

Netflix doesn't sell ads (and doesn't rely on user-generated content, so they can't really threaten democracy), but if you read interviews with executives, they also seem to be optimizing for maximum time spent on the service. Apple, too, reportedly told developers it's increasingly looking for Apple Arcade games that will "keep users hooked" over a long period. [1] Consequently, I'm not convinced removing ad-supported media will fix the problem of companies optimizing for engagement at all costs. Humans are stupid, and so we're more willing to pay for services where we spend lots of time, irrespective of the quality of that time. --- 1: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/30/apple-arcade-game-strategy-shift/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/30/apple-arcade-game-strat...

zapita 6y ago
The difference is that TV shows and video games are clearly entertainment, so you know what to expect. It’s possible for a fictional TV show or video game to manipulate you, but it’s harder because you know what you’re experiencing isn’t real. Social media is more dangerous because it can warp your perception of reality: what is happening in the world, what people think and care about in your neighborhood and your country; what is a scientific fact and what is up for debate; which politician is trustworthy and which isn’t. There is no boundary to what aspect of your life Facebook or Google can manipulate. With an ad business model, they are incentivized to expand the scope of manipulation further and further, since their ability to influence you is literally what they sell.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  I agree. The question is, if Facebook relied on paid subscriptions instead of ads, would they have designed their algorithm differently? I think they'd still optimize for engagement / time spent on site.
  - zapita 6y ago
    Sure but they would not be infested with conspiracy theories and fake accounts because those would be worthless. So instead of our parents being lobotomized by QAnon, they would still be inviting us to their Zynga farm game so they can unlock the pumpkin patch extension. Still scammy but less destructive to democratic institutions and free will as we know it. The ad business model is not just about selling engagement, it’s about creating an ecosystem enabling the worst players to make the most money, while the platforms at the center keep their hands clean. Google started this tradition with malware search bars and shady affiliates; Facebook and Youtube just took it to the next level. None of that shit is profitable with subscriptions.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      > Sure but they would not be infested with conspiracy theories and fake accounts because those would be worthless. Why? How are those conspiracy theories connected to advertising? They're not worthless insofar as they cause users to spend more time on Facebook. And Facebook would want to optimize for time spent on their site regardless of whether it was to keep users paying or to show them more ads.

tshaddox 6y ago

I agree with your diagnosis, but perhaps not your treatment plan. You seem to think that making the social networks’ business model illegal would not be a violation of free speech, but that the social networks limiting distribution of misinformation would be a violation of free speech. Am I interpreting you correctly?

strawberrypuree 6y ago
No lucid assessment of “free speech” entertains a definition that includes “the use of machine learning to target messages to individuals in order to make money.” In the same way me sitting outside your house watching when you come and go to determine the best time to place a political flier on your door so you’ll see it when I want you to, surveillance capitalism it not free speech.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  So you can't use machine learning.... can you use psychology to craft your message? Can you do surveys and gather demographic data to choose where to target? You obviously think there is a line where you can no longer use tools to craft your message, but I am not sure where you would draw it. I feel like any argument you make against machine learning is going to be able to also be used against something like the printing press. Couldn't people have said, "clearly, using a machine to make thousands of copies of your text is unfair and an abuse of free speech... you need to write your words by hand like the rest of us!"
  - crpatino 6y ago
    For what is worth, I think psychological manipulation is the real bad. Machine learning is just a force multiplier.
  - MinusGix 6y ago
    Like a lot of issues you'll likely need to choose a Schelling point (arbitrary cutoff). Some of it is simple inconveniences. It is a lot harder to learn enough psychology, understand your audience, and so on to influence them in comparison to having a program that scans every word they've put on their [social media account here] to decide how best to convince them. That would likely stop a good amount of actors. If a quite small amount of people had access to and were using the printing press, then that might legitimately be an argument for the government in that country to ban it as it gives them more power over others. Though, once it becomes common and non-secret technology then everyone has been amplified the same way. Now, that 'give everyone the ability to use machine learning to tailor their text to the audience' could be a route your could attempt, but I don't think it makes as much sense for machine learning even if I could imagine a society that has that.

desipis 6y ago

> The core issue is the underlying system that values engagement over all things ... the advertising system. I don't think you're digging deep enough here. It's not the business model. It's the technology. We've invented technology that can, to a significant degree, control people. It is as addictive as hard drugs and people will just keep coming back to their dealer for more and more digital crack. But it's worse than simply heroin or crack cocaine. It gives the dealers not just the power to keep people coming back for more, but also gives them far, far more control over not just what those people do, but what those people think. The large companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) aren't in the business of search or social media. Nor are they in the business of advertisement. Their business model is selling complete control over people at the population level. At some point it will stop being a business model and start being a self sustaining model of raw power that strips us of our humanity. We need to take a hard stance to all attempts at psychological manipulation via technology. A/B testing to see how changes affect behaviour should be seen as morally repugnant as selling crack cocaine to children.

pdonis 6y ago
> I don't think you're digging deep enough here. It's not the business model. It's the technology. I don't think you're digging deep enough here. It's not the technology. It's the people. Meaning not just the people running companies, but all of us. Technology is a tool. Any tool can be used for nefarious purposes, or for beneficial purposes. Which kind it gets used for depends on the people who use it, and on the people who are creating the environment in which the people using the tools operate. I don't dispute that most of the people who are running large companies (not even limited to social media companies) are amoral and will do anything to make more money, including manipulating other people's thoughts and opinions. But such people can only thrive in an environment where there are lots of other people who are susceptible to their manipulation. There will always be nefarious people in the world. But there is no rule that says there have to be enough other people who are susceptible to them to enable them to thrive. I don't disagree that people who make money through lies and manipulation should be punished. But I think we all need to take a step back and ask why such people are able to thrive in our society to this extent. At some point the rest of society needs to take some responsibility for not being susceptible to liars and crooks.

pdonis 6y ago

> Companies that make their money selling ads Which includes...the New York Times. And all other media companies. > This business model should be illegal. It's already trivially unethical. By this criterion, pretty much all newspapers that have ever existed should be illegal. Also pretty much all TV channels. If this is a problem, it's been a problem since long before Facebook and Twitter.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thesagan 6y ago
It's a problem. Been one since the Spanish-American war. Some of the biggest source of advertising revenues for news media organizations comes from defense companies. The New York Times pushed for the Iraq war, for example. They fired journalists who reported dovish news, too. Many others left to report as freelancers so they could paint more accurate pictures in smaller publications. Similarly, MSNBC will bring on ex-Pentagon officials to "analyze" current events, but they don't bring in ex-State Department officials. There are likely patterns and incentives here. "Follow the money" as they like to say.
- jdkee 6y ago
  I don't see a lot of military or defense contractor ads in the NYT.
  - wyre 6y ago
    It could very well be a ‘here’s a check if you keep our names off your tongue’ situation. I have no idea though. I don’t read the Times/I use an addblock
glial 6y ago
Yeah, there’s a terrible conflict of interest between informing the public and selling advertising. There has been for a long time. It’s just worse now. We should figure out how to fix it rather than throw up our hands.

jseliger 6y ago

It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. Try teaching non-elite undergrads sometime, and particularly assignments that require some sense of epistemology, and you'll discover that the vast majority of people have pretty poor personal epistemic hygiene—it's not much required in most people, most of the time, in most jobs. We evolved to form tribes, not to be "right." Jonathan's Haidt's The Righteous Mind deals with this topic well. https://jakeseliger.com/2012/03/25/jonathan-haidts-the-righteous-mind-and-what-were-really-arguing-about https://jakeseliger.com/2012/03/25/jonathan-haidts-the-right...

trophycase 6y ago
This, I keep saying this. It's not a question of truth, it was never really a question of truth. It's about who is saying what.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  In my experience this is 100% the case. If someone doesn't like you, no matter what you do or the rationality of what you say will not change their opinion of you unless it saves them from undue harm.
Hammershaft 6y ago
Are undergrads from elite universities any different from your experience?
- aaron-santos 6y ago
  It's likely worse. Their ability to rationalize may be higher.
petermcneeley 6y ago
I think some concrete examples would be nice.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

specialist 6y ago

"... unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement." Correct. The Freedom Speeches™ food fight is just a useful distraction, to head off any structural reforms. Similarly, all the pearl clutching over fact checking and truthiness and bias is completely misguided, serving to crowd out useful technical reforms. Actual journalism (reporting) is very simple: - Share your data. - Cite your sources. - Sign your work. Any medium claiming to be "news" must have built-in support.

kofejnik 6y ago

highly relevant fiction (fiction?): https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/

ABCLAW 6y ago

>It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. Unchecked free speech has always been an issue, which is why even in America, where free speech occupies one of the highest rankings of competing social virtues by dint of history, there are still a litany of narrow carve outs. Do you lie to your business parters in the context of a transaction? We hit you with fraud, misrepresentation, or any number of torts. Do you threaten someone with bodily harm? Oh boy. Cyberbullying? Depending on your state, that might be a problem. Lying while under oath or to a federal agent? That's potentially a few years behind bars. So yes, unrestricted 'say anything lmao' free speech does not exist. It has never existed. It will never exist. Everyone who does us the disservice of trotting it out as if it does exist is creating a strawman which distracts us from a more honest conversation. Which isn't 'should there be a line at all?' It's 'where should that line be drawn?'

armatav 6y ago
No - it's "there should be no line at all". Even a minor concession is the beginning of a total defeat. In all of those instances you listed there are circumstances above and beyond the contextual meaning of free-speech in the above posters reply.
- d23 6y ago
  Your first sentence is obviously ridiculous given the examples the poster gave. I don’t know what the second sentence even means.
unishark 6y ago
Speech in freedom of speech refers to the communication of ideas and opinions, not all communication. The term "freedom of expression" is commonly used to clarify this. Lying to your partner is not a crime. Taking their money under those circumstances is the crime.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  But again, this is just the status quo. Why is lying to someone to take their money a crime, but lying to someone to influence an election not? What makes money worth special protections, but voting not?

thayne 6y ago

I'm curious what kind of business model would incentivize providing accurate, balanced information over spectacle and divisiveness.

BuyMyBitcoins 6y ago
It would depend on recommendation algorithms actively promoting that balanced content.
dimator 6y ago
None. That's the problem. We've reached a point where the very engine of humanity's growth, capitalism, has revealed a huge vulnerability in its design.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  That flaw was apparent generations ago; yellow journalism isn't a product of the internet age. Capitalism also isn't the fundamental engine of hunanity’s growth, just a fairly recent stage in the development of economic systems that is likely as transitional as all the past stages.

hechang1997 6y ago

Yes, currently the 2nd amendment only guarentees that no censorship comes from government. We need a stronger guarantee: no censorship on any public discourse from any party. Not any kind, because even well intentioned censorship causes problems! Using reddit as an example: suppose there is a subreddit A that discuss news and politics, and the mods ban racist comments. If you are a racist, will you change your racist way if you found your post banned? No, of course not. You would just be indignant and find/make another subreddit B that is more tolerant of racism. The subreddit B is provided the same tools subreddit A uses for censoring racist posts, and abuse these tools to censor any voices that argue against racism. You can no longer be convinced to abandon racism because you are stuck in your comfort zone and anyone who argue against racism are just SJW or special snowflakes in your eyes and their opinions are automatically dismissed by your brain.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
taxicab 6y ago
Unless you are planning to gun down some state censors, then I'm guessing you mean the first amendment.
- hechang1997 6y ago
  Ops... Brain just shortcut

goBackwards00 6y ago

You want this to be illegal? Get to work on it. The subtle underlying problem is all the people out there curating cogent arguments about the problem on social media, meaning countless hours spent avoiding the legwork. Hi HN. Hi Reddit. Hi Facebook. Hi tech workers who have to constantly re-invent the wheel. I’m sick of “both sides” and every one in between projecting and deflecting. You all want to look at the problem in society, look in the mirror, cause you’re a part of it too. Say and do other things rather than demand other people do and say other things. American people and politicians are on the same page: nothing is my fault, and it’s only my problem if I get paid for fixing it.

clusterfish 6y ago

You think billionaire magnates and state actors who fund a lot of this divisive content care about advertising profits? No, in fact they have the deepest pockets and will be the last ones standing regardless on what you do with twitter and such. They don't need twitter, its focus on engagement just makes their efforts more cost effective. Cut that off and they'll refocus on buying national and local TV networks or whatever else gets eyeballs and attention.

blockmeifyoucan 6y ago

Advertising needs to go away. All moral arguments aside, humanity can no longer afford to spend so much energy on something with so little benefit.

non-cotton 6y ago

I think this has a lot to do with the platforms vs. publishers issue, and the Section 230 dustup we're about to see. IMO any platform whose owners have enough editorial control for these engagment-hacking techniques to be useful (the ability to decide what gets seen, what doesn't, and who sees what) should be treated as a publisher, not a platform. This doesn't have to kill online communities generally. As long as we can distinguish between editorial control and freedom of association (i.e. the ability to ban rule-breakers and people we don't like) I don't see why effective moderation wouldn't be possible.

disown 6y ago

> Society is misdiagnosing the issue here. I think you are being a bit generous here. It isn't society doing the diagnosing. It's just a group of highly privileged individuals. It's one disinformation entity demanding privileged position in the disinformation space. All state propagandists complain about disinformation. Whether it is the bbc or chinese propaganda organizations or russian or whatever. They all claim to be worried about and fight against disinformation just like the nytimes. After all, if you are fighting disinformation, then you must not be party to disinformation. But we all know that's a lie. > That is, the advertising system. Nope. Disinformation/propaganda/yellow journalism/etc predates the modern age of advertisement. In the past, newspapers were funded by wealthy business people, politicians or government. And they were all created to further the aims of their creator via propaganda. Ask yourself who created the nytimes and why? > This business model should be illegal. Nope. You are being misled by disinformation. It's not the business model or the profit generating mechanism. It's the nature of the business itself. News/media/etc exist to manipulate people. It was created to tell people how they should think or feel about events. To guide the herd. Also, engagement was important long before social media.