5 ms·

Something i rarely see come up: misinformation is itself an assault on free speech. You are confusing the minds of people who have a right to the truth and ther

• ducktective 6y ago
  And who is the grand judge on what is misinformation? Yeah, that is the whole point...
  • greatgirl 6y ago
    Reason. Reason is the judge
    • stretchcat 6y ago
      Who is reason?
      • greatgirl 6y ago
        It's not a person, it's philosophy, logic, science, etc.
        • stretchcat 6y ago
          And the people who will be the impartial applicators of reason? Who will these judges of misinformation be?
        • nailer 6y ago
          Who determines reason?
          • greatgirl 6y ago
            Dialectics. Immanent critique. The method of isolating the contradictions of a system so as to arrive at the best possible answer. No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
            • deleted 6y ago
              [deleted]
          • proactivesvcs 6y ago
            No single person, group or authority. It is an ongoing determination by many people from a host of backgrounds, biases and intentions who still all agree on what is reasonable and what is not. It is determined by merely asking oneself "do I have doubt that is logical, fair and as unbiased as possible?". Gather enough of these people - from as wide a field as possible - and you have reason.
            • nailer 6y ago
              > it is an ongoing determination by many people from a host of backgrounds, biases and intentions who still all agree on what is reasonable and what is not. Where does this happen currently?
        • xenocratus 6y ago
          This is implying there is always a Right™ answer or way to do something - especially when it comes to policy, for example, there's plenty of space for nuance that has no objective right or wrong. Life isn't math, regardless of how much our polarised world wants it to be so
          • greatgirl 6y ago
            We have been attempting our best to come towards the most correct answers for everything, since forever. To suggest all of a sudden that this method is irrelevant is odd. It is to suggest that we should no longer pursue truth and instead lay everything on the table and say it's all correct and you should just pick whatever makes you feel the best.
            • xenocratus 6y ago
              We can't pursue Truth where there is no objective Truth to be pursued, we have to figure out what a good course of action is right now, without spending centuries to solve a problem that destroys society tomorrow. I wasn't really talking about free speech in particular, though it applies there as well. Is there a general consensus in philosophy on what The Truth About Free Speech is? Where the limits *need* to be? How to implement it in the context of large social media corporations? There isn't some grand set of values that everyone has to agree with, btw, unless you're willing to sacrifice everyone else's mental frameworks and perspectives (which might be a sacrifice you're willing to take, but I guess not everyone is so keen on :) )
          • proactivesvcs 6y ago
            Your assertion falls apart when I ask you if there is a Right™ answer to "Is the Earth flat?". There are irrefutable answers to some questions. Others are backed up by a mountain of reproducaeble data, collected and re-checked over years, decades, by many people who go out of their way to disprove their own hypothesis and wriggle out of their own data. When they cannot reasonably do so, we are left with a fact. Most of them are not perfect, immutable or immortal, but even if not, no rational person can accuse them of being wrong.
        • OneGuy123 6y ago
          And it's humans who decide what "science" is based on their incorrect p value selection and corruption and mishandling of statistics even if they mean good.
        • cjfd 6y ago
          Philosophy, logic and science are all applied by persons and the results tend to vary depending on who is applying it. I suppose logic could be a bit more on the objective impersonal side of things but philosophy and science are definitely not. That is, only if logic is actually logic in the sense of logic. If one start talking about tings like 'logical falacies' (e.g. ad homininem, argument from authority and so on) as often is done on forums like these one is already very far from anything objective. For one thing, one is probably inclined to be much more severe in pointing out 'logical falacies' in statements that one disagrees with rather than in statement that one agrees with.
      • xg15 6y ago
        We only have a whole system of evidence-finding and scientific discovery to solve that question, but ok, let's ignore all progress of the last 200 years.
        • stretchcat 6y ago
          'Science' is not a court of law.
          • xg15 6y ago
            Please explain.
            • stretchcat 6y ago
              If you want to deprive people of their right to free speech, you'll have to do it through the courts. Saying that human judges won't be necessary because you'll 'use science' is inane.
              • xg15 6y ago
                You don't seem to have a very high opinion of science.
  • user-the-name 6y ago
    Irrelevant. Misinformation is information that is known to be false by the spreader. They can not make the argument that they honestly thought it to be true.
    • stretchcat 6y ago
      > Misinformation is information that is known to be false by the spreader. That's wrong. Misinformation is often spread unwittingly.
      • user-the-name 6y ago
        Less than you think. A lot of misinformation is spread by people who pretend to believe it, but do know on some level it is bullshit.
      • fires10 6y ago
        Yes, but much is created by bad actors knowingly spreading misinformation so it will go viral. I do not fault those who do not know better but I fault those who do or should by the result of their position. All leaders and candidates have an obligation to check there information. All purported news agencies or pundits as well. There is a different burden depending on audience an reasonable affect.
    • ernst_klim 6y ago
      > known to be false by the spreader So if the spreader believes it's true? How do you know if they know or pretending?
      • xg15 6y ago
        That's a special case that we can discuss when necessary. I think it's useful enough for practical purposes that we can clearly classify something as misinformation where the spreader knew what they were doing.
    • Miner49er 6y ago
      I'd argue that the vast majority of misinformation online is spread by those that truly believe it.
  • xg15 6y ago
    > Yeah, that is the whole point... This rhetorical question is rather old, but you should at least await answers before concluding it can't be answered.
• Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > You are confusing the minds of people who have a right to the truth and therefore the freedom to express themselves. That is a most silly argument. One does not loose any freedom to express oneself if one believe in a falsehood, for if that were true, no man would enjoy any such freedom as all believe at least some falsehoods.
  • greatgirl 6y ago
    If you only believed lies, your thoughts can never truly be free. However if you believe some truths, your thoughts as expressed and built on top of those truths are free, whereas those built on top of lies are not. Freedom here means freedom of expression. You can still tell lies, but you will never truly be free to produce confident thought because your mind is trapped in a prison of delusion.
  • proactivesvcs 6y ago
    I'd argue that if you have been misled then you have not formed an opinion: you have been tricked into accepting someone else's opinion. I do not think that a delusion is truly an opinion.
    • Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      Perhaps, but how does that limit one's freedom to express one's opinion? It only limits one's power, not freedom in forming it. Having the freedom and the power to do things are two entirely different things. A mute and deaf man is considerably hampered in the power to express his opinion, but not in his freedom to. Similarly, freedom to own property is an entirely different matter to whether a citizen have the capital to purchase it.
      • proactivesvcs 6y ago
        Ah, I did not put across my point very clearly. I was not trying to imply that believing in a falsehood should mean one should be prohibited from speaking it (with exceptions). I meant an opinion born from manipulation is not truly one's own, and to express it is not expressing one's own opinion, rather someone else's.
• stretchcat 6y ago
  You seem to assume misinformation is perpetrated with cynical malicious intent. Misinformation may also be the result of people earnestly being misinformed or generally just ignorant.
• jka 6y ago
  Does your argument lead to the conclusion that only verifiably correct and true speech should be allowed?
  • greatgirl 6y ago
    I don't make policy proposals, I just want people to think about whether deliberate misinformation infringes upon the rights of others.
  • proactivesvcs 6y ago
    No. I'm fine with someone orating their opinions. Blogging about them, writing to newspapers with them. What should not be allowed is that they are framed as factual statements, repeated by those in public offices or used to make policy.
• ernst_klim 6y ago
  Ah. In Russia there is a `fake news' law. They just put label `fake news' on anything they don't like, and censor it. Glad to know that Russia has free speech. As other comment rightly pointed out, your implication requires censor. Also it implies that misinformation is decidable, i.e. there is a strictly objective rigid method of telling what it The Truth™ everybody agreed upon. Could you show me such a decision procedure?
  • greatgirl 6y ago
    > Could you show me such a decision procedure? Sure, it's called reason, philosophy, and the scientific method, all of which influence a dialectic which is a method of arriving at the truth.
    • ernst_klim 6y ago
      > reason Buzzword > philosophy Subjective opinions hidden behind obscure rhetoric. > scientific method Is not applicable to most of the issues bothering human beings: epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics are highly unscientific. Neither are decision procedures though. Here is the example: Putin is a thief. Show me a rigid decision procedure proving it right or misinformation.
      • greatgirl 6y ago
        > Show me a rigid decision procedure proving it right or misinformation. You and another commenter missed a crucial part of my sentence: dialectics. The method of isolating the contradictions of a system so as to arrive at the best possible answer. No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
        • ernst_klim 6y ago
          > No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. If you can't tell truth from lies how are you sure something is misinformation? What's the point of the term misinformation then? Most people agree upon the shape of earth anyway, but questionable topics are questionable due to, you know, lack of persuading argument which would persuade the bulk of people.
• curo 6y ago
  The original post discusses harm as a boundary condition. Things like libel, slander, false statements of fact, false advertising, etc have long been considered beneficial as a limitation on free speech (e.g., not protected by the First Amendment) The term "misinformation" contains an argument that there is a broader set of statements (not yet considered libelous or false in the eyes of the law), which should be regulated by an appointed group or new set of laws. The backlash is against this new zeitgeist: a campaign against misinformation is certainly one that dials back the liberal view on freedom of speech, more so than the current boundary conditions already established.
• cjfd 6y ago
  The devil is in the detail here, though. Who is going to decide what is misinformation and not? In all practical cases it would seem to be that this person and/or organization is soon going to be a censor. Also, truth is not quite enough to decide what is true, weirdly enough. There is a gazillion facts in the world and just by selecting a subset of these one can paint a rather different picture. Everybody has their own subset. Then there is the matter where facts end and interpretation begins. This line is never 100% clear. One could also philosophically argue that every fact is at leas partially interpretation. If I have noticed a subset of the gazillion facts and drawn a conclusion from that but you have noticed a different but potentially overlapping subset you might well draw the opposite conclusion and then start asserting that I am spreading misinformation. Also, it is quite possible to draw a different conclusion from the same fact when one has different basic views. In practice this is not possible in any practical way. It seem to me the main problem are that there are things like troll factories and also that everybody is just getting information from their own bubble. The latter could maybe be addressed in a small way if we forbid these big companies to spy on people so much. For the first problem I just do not see a solution. Maybe the only thing that can be done is waiting until peoples BS-detectors have calibrated themselves somewhat to the new online world that we are living in. Which may or may not happen.....
  • watwut 6y ago
    > The devil is in the detail here, though. Who is going to decide what is misinformation and not? I think that it is separate question - should the government have power to censor misinformation? Is it good or bad for this company to censor that misinformation? However, that does not mean that misinformation campaign itself can not be considered "an assault on free speech" or whatever else.
    • ernst_klim 6y ago
      > misinformation campaign itself can not be considered "an assault on free speech" How is it an assault if it doesn't prohibit the opposing opinion.
      • 6y ago
• dcb_tech 6y ago
  Politicians consistently misinform and lie. So does the government in general. If anyone has something to gain from it it's the government. I don't need someone telling me what is and what isn't "good" information, I can do that myself.
  • proactivesvcs 6y ago
    The problem is the growing number of people who do not, or choose not to, and those in power who elect to manipulate them.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• graycat 6y ago
  > Your right to spread misinformation cannot be justified on the grounds of free speech. My response has long been that from the media, etc., I want solid information, up to, say, at least common high school term paper writing standards with complete quotes, with context, with credible references to objective, original sources. Then I want the author to have a long established solid reputation. In practice, that approach does not work very well. First, nearly nothing in the media meets such standards. Second, even with the high school standards, it is still too easy to manipulate, deceive, or lie to an audience. My view of deception in politics is that it stands on a foundation of the audience wanting only headlines or very short articles. Then, writing deceptive material is easy. It would appear, then, that at least for now, stopping the deception in politics would be easy since the deception depends on just no more than short news articles and, thus, should be easy to debunk for the fraction of the audience willing to read some material a little longer and more complete. At this point, until the means of deception react, there may be some potential via such longer materials.
  • proactivesvcs 6y ago
    And if found to have published misinformation, if one does not publish a retraction that is at least as prominent as the falsehood, one should suffer punitive consequences and be prohibited from being employed or contracted in any media organisation.
• spuz 6y ago
  The topic of misinformation is at the very heart of freedom of speech and comes up all the time including in this article.
• unabst 6y ago
  This. We should call this "fake speech". American absurdism is rooted in fake speech with the intent to cheat and steal. It's perfectly permisible for politicians, businesses, and even individuals to say whatever they need to say to get what is not rightfully theirs. And they all get away with it, because the law hasn't caught up with fake speech yet. Why did this happen? Because they intended to. But the law only punishes what they did, and provides loopholes for not ever admitting intent, so long as they lie about it. That lie is the true crime. That lie is profitable. Irnonically, in modern America, it takes a fake news show to be honest about the news, and a comedian to be honest about modern culture. That's also absurd. Hilarious, but absurd. "When telling the truth, if you don't make them laugh, they will kill you."
• atypicaluser 6y ago
  > misinformation is itself an assault on free speech. Misinformation is a type of free speech. Whether purposeful (medical experts lying as to whether we should wear masks) or accidental (weather forecasting,) misinformation is merely a facet of freedom, to use wisely or not. Some instances are made illegal (e.g. in a stock exchange,) whereas most instances are seen as harmless (Santa Claus) or used to prevent greater harm (this shot will only hurt a little, Louise.) What's healthy is to reserve a bit of skepticism towards the information you get till you can confirm it is 'truthful' or not.
• dang 6y ago
  We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. That's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • unabst 6y ago
    That is impossible to police. The topic is Freedom of Speech. You need to ban these topics or there will always be battles, as there should be. Greatgirl also makes an important point. It also appears she only made this point once, here, and has no other "violations". The comment wasn't provoking or ill-meaning. It most certainly did not "trample curiosity".