5 ms·

I believe the following statements are simultaneously true, yet rarely simultaneously acknowledged: 1) The First Amendment says nothing about which content com

I believe the following statements are simultaneously true, yet rarely simultaneously acknowledged: 1) The First Amendment says nothing about which content companies must produce, promote, or allow with their resources and on their platforms. 2) The principle of free speech extends beyond the First Amendment or government censorship: our society has a considerable interest in the open exchange of ideas and information, especially by the least popular among us, so that we may conduct the difficult conversations which are the prerequisite for progress, and possess the freedoms of thought and communication which are the prerequisites for enlightenment. 3) The increasing centralization of control over new media in a handful of large technology companies (mainly Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter) poses an intense threat to the aforementioned open exchange of ideas, especially where such ideas may threaten business interests of those companies, or merely taint them by association with something or someone unpopular. 4) The lack of collective immunity to viral forms of political disinformation on new media platforms, the speed with which such disinformation spreads, and the active, asymmetric promotion of that disinformation by certain political actors, poses a paradox of tolerance of a sort, threatening the continuation of the open society on which everything good depends. These four truths form a tangled knot which must be cut, but to do so, we must first see its whole, and not merely one or two of its threads.

madeofpalk 6y ago
> Twitter I find it really funny when Twitter is lumped in with the rest of these countries. It is almost like an order or magnitude smaller than all the others, and makes considerably less money. Twitter is a small niche social network with people who control the news, which vastly overstates it's size.
- DavidSJ 6y ago
  I thought about that point when constructing that list, but despite Twitter's small size as a business, it has outsized power in the media environment. For complementary reasons, I excluded Microsoft, despite its large size. I'm sure one could debate the exact composition of that list, but it's not too important to the larger point.
- DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
  Interesting take, but Twitter is where all biotech news breaks and discussions with KOLs occur.
  - dharma1 6y ago
    Which biotech Twitter accounts are worth following?
- cobbzilla 6y ago
  Perhaps it's more about power and influence than money. Twitter has political power, therefore it gets included. How big is the newspaper industry relative to its influence?
- polytely 6y ago
  Twitter has a lot of journalists on it which in turn influences the news. Twitter can be used to influence how the people that make the news view reality
bondarchuk 6y ago
I have strong doubts about number 4. Paradoxically, the people with the strongest investment in that line of thinking are those with the biggest desire to manipulate the public. The whole discourse around information consumption on the web, with terms such as "viral" and "radicalization", seems purposely designed to paint the picture that we're all helpless to defend ourselves from information on the internet. I just don't buy it. If you ignore the screeching of traditional media pundits, and the various internet commentators, the general level of ignorance and cranky beliefs in the real world among real people seems to me to be about the same as always. Sorry if that was a bit ranty. About the other 3 points, I agree completely. P.S. Wasn't the paradox of tolerance mostly about violence, not just untrue or undesirable information?
- DavidSJ 6y ago
  Here's Popper in his own words: "Less well known [than Plato's paradoxes of freedom and of democracy] is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force…" (The Open Society and Its Enemies, ch. 7, note 4) What's clear from this quotation is that Popper advocated neither unlimited suppression of all wrongthink (as the gleeful Nazi punchers sometimes misrepresent him, and indeed advocate themselves), nor the opposite extreme of unlimited tolerance of any political speech so long as no violence has yet been employed (as the more libertarian among us sometimes misrepresent him). And that's the key to how I'd respond to your point about the "general level of ignorance". I think you may be right that the general level of ignorance has not worsened. It is in any case quite difficult to measure such a thing. But the prevalence of misinformation specifically about foundational matters of democratic governance, such as whether one can even trust the elections themselves, being promoted by actors with open disdain for open society, and a clear intent to end it, is the precise sort of situation I believe Popper had in mind with this passage.
madeofpalk 6y ago
> 3) The increasing centralization of control over new media in a handful of large technology companies [...] > 4) The lack of collective immunity to viral forms of political disinformation on new media platforms [...] Are these new points, or are is it just that the gatekeepers are changing? Arguably media is now _less_ centralised than its ever been. Before it was just a handfull of newspapers and tv companies, and now while we still have the same 'tranditional media' companies (who've gone through their own megers, acquisitions, and breakups) there are now all the tech companies as well getting into media, as well as all the independent orgs/voices (who might be beholded to bigger tech platforms, like Youtube)
- DavidSJ 6y ago
  There's some give and take over time, I grant. But compare the situation today not to the 1950's, but to the early 2000's, when there was a thriving ecosystem of independent blogs and bookstores, to today, where a few big media platforms host the lion's share of conversation, and Amazon dominates book sales. I think it was easier to maintain an independent voice 15-20 years ago.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    I think we've actually never had it so good. There are still a lot of really great blogs out there - I read them all the time, probably most of my reading is online news and blogs. It's just that blogging was always going to be niche and now thanks to Twitter and YouTube all the people who don't like long form writing have a space too, so it can feel like in depth writing has been drowned out. But it's still there. These things weren't subtractive.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      I think powerful intermediaries to the common spread of information, like Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are proving troublesome. Views like "masks might make us safer from COVID" were suppressed not too long ago. It's a wacky place we're in. Some of the criticism out there (COVID denial, election fraud, etc) is dangerous, but legitimate criticism and nuanced points are getting crushed too in the process. And the entities involved in the suppression are powerful, moving in lockstep, and have limited accountability to the public. Worse, these platforms have the illusion of being grassroots and open, but you never know when you're getting state-sponsored manipulation or what kinds of content isn't permitted to flow through them today.
syshum 6y ago
#2 is the biggest problem we have today. Too many people believe Free Speech is SOLELY about government censorship, we have culturally lost a huge amount of respect for the principle of free expression Instead we look to "cancel" or socially isolate those that do not share our worldview. There was a time where people could passionately debate politics, or even more personal issues such as abortion, and then still enjoy a game, party, or have a beer at the pub with someone you just passionately disagreed with on another topic. It seems today if persons / groups have an ideological opposition in anything, they must treat their opposition as if they are immoral and completely banish them from their lives With out this base cultural respect for free expression the 1st amendment will become meaningless and will likely fail to protect from government censorship. We need to get back to a time where people can passionately disagree on a topic with out being "cancelled", but I honestly do not see how to accomplish that
- Anechoic 6y ago
  There was a time where people could passionately debate politics, or even more personal issues such as abortion, and then still enjoy a game, party, or have a beer at the pub with someone you just passionately disagreed with on another topic. It seems today if persons / groups have an ideological opposition in anything, they must treat their opposition as if they are immoral and completely banish them from their lives When was this mythical time? It wasn't too long ago when abortion clinics were being bombed and abortion doctors were gunned down at their homes and places of work. In living memory are periods when anti-war and civil rights protestors were set upon by dogs and firehoses. Gun companies were boycott for cooperating with gun-control measures. There was the whole South Africa divestment movement. PMRC was doing it's best to "cancel" rock & rap, Terry Rakolta was doing her level best to get Married with Children kicked off the network. And let's not forget Robert Bork. Americans have always been passionate about issues, only the platforms and terminology are new.
  - mtberatwork 6y ago
    Let's not forget Phyllis Schlafly, the Moral Majority, etc.
  - 6y ago
dkyc 6y ago
Do 3) and 4) not contradict each other? 3) states all the distribution power is in the hands of a few companies, and 4) states that no entity can control the flow of information on these newly created distribution channels. Seems like they can't both be true?
- DavidSJ 6y ago
  The point is the tension. It’s very easy to acknowledge (1) and (4), or (2) and (3). It’s very rare to acknowledge all four. That said, there’s a misunderstanding here: (3) says much, not all, of the power is increasingly centralized, and that that’s concerning in light of (2). (4) isn’t saying the companies lack power. It’s saying that their platforms are being abused. It’s understood (from (3)) that they can (indeed sometimes do) use their power to attempt to control that abuse.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
#2 just is most oft heard by people who are upset that their viewpoints, generally concerning the status hierarchy being threatened, are dismissed out of hand.
hsod 6y ago
> 1) The First Amendment says nothing about which content companies must produce, promote, or allow with their resources and on their platforms. It's not just that it says nothing about these things. It says the opposite of these things. Any legal or social norm that attempts to enforce what content is produced, promoted, or allowed on private resources and platforms is fundamentally authoritarian. This includes the "principle of free speech" from your 2nd statement. The first amendment is a protection against authoritarianism. Using the ideas behind it to coerce private parties into hosting or promoting content they don't want to is a bit perverse.
andrekandre 6y ago
> 4) The lack of collective immunity to viral forms of political disinformation on new media platforms, the speed with which such disinformation spreads humans are predilected towards that... this type of "media" preys on our insticts like sugar and oil (junk food) if we really want to take this head-on, we would should be motivated to improve education to help students (who then become adults) to learn logic, reason and argumentation to better deal with this stuff

madeofpalk 6y ago

> Twitter I find it really funny when Twitter is lumped in with the rest of these countries. It is almost like an order or magnitude smaller than all the others, and makes considerably less money. Twitter is a small niche social network with people who control the news, which vastly overstates it's size.

DavidSJ 6y ago
I thought about that point when constructing that list, but despite Twitter's small size as a business, it has outsized power in the media environment. For complementary reasons, I excluded Microsoft, despite its large size. I'm sure one could debate the exact composition of that list, but it's not too important to the larger point.
DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
Interesting take, but Twitter is where all biotech news breaks and discussions with KOLs occur.
- dharma1 6y ago
  Which biotech Twitter accounts are worth following?
cobbzilla 6y ago
Perhaps it's more about power and influence than money. Twitter has political power, therefore it gets included. How big is the newspaper industry relative to its influence?
polytely 6y ago
Twitter has a lot of journalists on it which in turn influences the news. Twitter can be used to influence how the people that make the news view reality

bondarchuk 6y ago

I have strong doubts about number 4. Paradoxically, the people with the strongest investment in that line of thinking are those with the biggest desire to manipulate the public. The whole discourse around information consumption on the web, with terms such as "viral" and "radicalization", seems purposely designed to paint the picture that we're all helpless to defend ourselves from information on the internet. I just don't buy it. If you ignore the screeching of traditional media pundits, and the various internet commentators, the general level of ignorance and cranky beliefs in the real world among real people seems to me to be about the same as always. Sorry if that was a bit ranty. About the other 3 points, I agree completely. P.S. Wasn't the paradox of tolerance mostly about violence, not just untrue or undesirable information?

DavidSJ 6y ago
Here's Popper in his own words: "Less well known [than Plato's paradoxes of freedom and of democracy] is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force…" (The Open Society and Its Enemies, ch. 7, note 4) What's clear from this quotation is that Popper advocated neither unlimited suppression of all wrongthink (as the gleeful Nazi punchers sometimes misrepresent him, and indeed advocate themselves), nor the opposite extreme of unlimited tolerance of any political speech so long as no violence has yet been employed (as the more libertarian among us sometimes misrepresent him). And that's the key to how I'd respond to your point about the "general level of ignorance". I think you may be right that the general level of ignorance has not worsened. It is in any case quite difficult to measure such a thing. But the prevalence of misinformation specifically about foundational matters of democratic governance, such as whether one can even trust the elections themselves, being promoted by actors with open disdain for open society, and a clear intent to end it, is the precise sort of situation I believe Popper had in mind with this passage.

madeofpalk 6y ago

> 3) The increasing centralization of control over new media in a handful of large technology companies [...] > 4) The lack of collective immunity to viral forms of political disinformation on new media platforms [...] Are these new points, or are is it just that the gatekeepers are changing? Arguably media is now _less_ centralised than its ever been. Before it was just a handfull of newspapers and tv companies, and now while we still have the same 'tranditional media' companies (who've gone through their own megers, acquisitions, and breakups) there are now all the tech companies as well getting into media, as well as all the independent orgs/voices (who might be beholded to bigger tech platforms, like Youtube)

DavidSJ 6y ago
There's some give and take over time, I grant. But compare the situation today not to the 1950's, but to the early 2000's, when there was a thriving ecosystem of independent blogs and bookstores, to today, where a few big media platforms host the lion's share of conversation, and Amazon dominates book sales. I think it was easier to maintain an independent voice 15-20 years ago.
- thu2111 6y ago
  I think we've actually never had it so good. There are still a lot of really great blogs out there - I read them all the time, probably most of my reading is online news and blogs. It's just that blogging was always going to be niche and now thanks to Twitter and YouTube all the people who don't like long form writing have a space too, so it can feel like in depth writing has been drowned out. But it's still there. These things weren't subtractive.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    I think powerful intermediaries to the common spread of information, like Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are proving troublesome. Views like "masks might make us safer from COVID" were suppressed not too long ago. It's a wacky place we're in. Some of the criticism out there (COVID denial, election fraud, etc) is dangerous, but legitimate criticism and nuanced points are getting crushed too in the process. And the entities involved in the suppression are powerful, moving in lockstep, and have limited accountability to the public. Worse, these platforms have the illusion of being grassroots and open, but you never know when you're getting state-sponsored manipulation or what kinds of content isn't permitted to flow through them today.

syshum 6y ago

#2 is the biggest problem we have today. Too many people believe Free Speech is SOLELY about government censorship, we have culturally lost a huge amount of respect for the principle of free expression Instead we look to "cancel" or socially isolate those that do not share our worldview. There was a time where people could passionately debate politics, or even more personal issues such as abortion, and then still enjoy a game, party, or have a beer at the pub with someone you just passionately disagreed with on another topic. It seems today if persons / groups have an ideological opposition in anything, they must treat their opposition as if they are immoral and completely banish them from their lives With out this base cultural respect for free expression the 1st amendment will become meaningless and will likely fail to protect from government censorship. We need to get back to a time where people can passionately disagree on a topic with out being "cancelled", but I honestly do not see how to accomplish that

Anechoic 6y ago
There was a time where people could passionately debate politics, or even more personal issues such as abortion, and then still enjoy a game, party, or have a beer at the pub with someone you just passionately disagreed with on another topic. It seems today if persons / groups have an ideological opposition in anything, they must treat their opposition as if they are immoral and completely banish them from their lives When was this mythical time? It wasn't too long ago when abortion clinics were being bombed and abortion doctors were gunned down at their homes and places of work. In living memory are periods when anti-war and civil rights protestors were set upon by dogs and firehoses. Gun companies were boycott for cooperating with gun-control measures. There was the whole South Africa divestment movement. PMRC was doing it's best to "cancel" rock & rap, Terry Rakolta was doing her level best to get Married with Children kicked off the network. And let's not forget Robert Bork. Americans have always been passionate about issues, only the platforms and terminology are new.
- mtberatwork 6y ago
  Let's not forget Phyllis Schlafly, the Moral Majority, etc.
- 6y ago

dkyc 6y ago

Do 3) and 4) not contradict each other? 3) states all the distribution power is in the hands of a few companies, and 4) states that no entity can control the flow of information on these newly created distribution channels. Seems like they can't both be true?

DavidSJ 6y ago
The point is the tension. It’s very easy to acknowledge (1) and (4), or (2) and (3). It’s very rare to acknowledge all four. That said, there’s a misunderstanding here: (3) says much, not all, of the power is increasingly centralized, and that that’s concerning in light of (2). (4) isn’t saying the companies lack power. It’s saying that their platforms are being abused. It’s understood (from (3)) that they can (indeed sometimes do) use their power to attempt to control that abuse.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

#2 just is most oft heard by people who are upset that their viewpoints, generally concerning the status hierarchy being threatened, are dismissed out of hand.

hsod 6y ago

> 1) The First Amendment says nothing about which content companies must produce, promote, or allow with their resources and on their platforms. It's not just that it says nothing about these things. It says the opposite of these things. Any legal or social norm that attempts to enforce what content is produced, promoted, or allowed on private resources and platforms is fundamentally authoritarian. This includes the "principle of free speech" from your 2nd statement. The first amendment is a protection against authoritarianism. Using the ideas behind it to coerce private parties into hosting or promoting content they don't want to is a bit perverse.

andrekandre 6y ago

> 4) The lack of collective immunity to viral forms of political disinformation on new media platforms, the speed with which such disinformation spreads humans are predilected towards that... this type of "media" preys on our insticts like sugar and oil (junk food) if we really want to take this head-on, we would should be motivated to improve education to help students (who then become adults) to learn logic, reason and argumentation to better deal with this stuff