5 ms·

I wrote about why free speech is still important here: https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/recommendations-and-radicalization/ https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/recom

I wrote about why free speech is still important here: https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/recommendations-and-radicalization/ https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/recommendations-and-radicali... . Basically, the problem is not free speech. It's the social media drive for addiction.

lisper 6y ago
But that is exactly the problem: how do you separate the two? Once someone figures out a way to profit from "free speech" the profit motive takes over and infects the whole system. I don't see any way around that without compromising freedom.
- daniellarusso 6y ago
  Freedom is not absolute and boundless.
- voodootrucker 6y ago
  I think banning online advertising causing these sites to charge their users for the service would right a lot of wrongs automatically, when the free market can start to kick in and do it's job. It makes it so Facebook's product becomes online photo sharing, instead of it's current product which is manipulation and addiction. https://www.wired.com/story/why-dont-we-just-ban-targeted-advertising/ https://www.wired.com/story/why-dont-we-just-ban-targeted-ad...
  - danudey 6y ago
    Thanks for this link, it was a great read - and compelling.
  - slg 6y ago
    >I think banning online advertising So you want to limit speech in the name of protecting free speech?
    - saalweachter 6y ago
      Don't worry, it's only other people's speech.
    - blacksmith_tb 6y ago
      Limiting corporate speech in the name of protecting individual speech seems like a reasonable proposal to me.
      - slg 6y ago
        Corporations aren't the only ones that advertise. Completely eliminating advertising would restrict speech for both corporations and individuals. Maybe I want to create a charity and am looking to raise awareness for a fundraising event I am having. Maybe my dog ran away and I want to get the word out about a monetary reward I am offering for helping to find them. Maybe I am a touring comedian and I want to advertise my next show. Maybe I am an amateur photographer and want volunteer subjects to help hone my craft. The list goes on and on for potential non-corporate uses of advertising. If we want to treat corporate speech and individual speech differently, I think there is a much more important place to start: Citizens United v. FEC.
        nitrogen 6y ago
        In all of those cases you can just say what you want to say, you don't need to pay for special treatment to put your message in front of an unwilling audience. Restricting advertising isn't restricting speech, it's restricting the ability to pay for special treatment for your own speech.
        slg 6y ago
        > Restricting advertising isn't restricting speech, it's restricting the ability to pay for special treatment for your own speech. That isn't the way it works in the US. There are some restrictions on advertising, but is fundamentally protected speech in the US and therefore can't be banned outright.
      - 6y ago
- ghoward 6y ago
  I think you are somewhat correct here, but I do think there's a solution. As a sibling says, I think changing social media to where users are the _customers_, and not the _product_, is the answer. I wrote about doing that here: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/07/decentralizing-the-internet-and-other-ideas/ https://gavinhoward.com/2020/07/decentralizing-the-internet-... .
Ajedi32 6y ago
> echo chambers, are the very epitome of lack of free speech [...] since members of echo chambers only hear one argument, echo chambers are radicalizing, and they are radicalizing because they don’t have free speech Thanks, that's actually a really insightful way of looking at the problem.

lisper 6y ago

But that is exactly the problem: how do you separate the two? Once someone figures out a way to profit from "free speech" the profit motive takes over and infects the whole system. I don't see any way around that without compromising freedom.

daniellarusso 6y ago
Freedom is not absolute and boundless.
voodootrucker 6y ago
I think banning online advertising causing these sites to charge their users for the service would right a lot of wrongs automatically, when the free market can start to kick in and do it's job. It makes it so Facebook's product becomes online photo sharing, instead of it's current product which is manipulation and addiction. https://www.wired.com/story/why-dont-we-just-ban-targeted-advertising/ https://www.wired.com/story/why-dont-we-just-ban-targeted-ad...
- danudey 6y ago
  Thanks for this link, it was a great read - and compelling.
- slg 6y ago
  >I think banning online advertising So you want to limit speech in the name of protecting free speech?
  - saalweachter 6y ago
    Don't worry, it's only other people's speech.
  - blacksmith_tb 6y ago
    Limiting corporate speech in the name of protecting individual speech seems like a reasonable proposal to me.
    - slg 6y ago
      Corporations aren't the only ones that advertise. Completely eliminating advertising would restrict speech for both corporations and individuals. Maybe I want to create a charity and am looking to raise awareness for a fundraising event I am having. Maybe my dog ran away and I want to get the word out about a monetary reward I am offering for helping to find them. Maybe I am a touring comedian and I want to advertise my next show. Maybe I am an amateur photographer and want volunteer subjects to help hone my craft. The list goes on and on for potential non-corporate uses of advertising. If we want to treat corporate speech and individual speech differently, I think there is a much more important place to start: Citizens United v. FEC.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        In all of those cases you can just say what you want to say, you don't need to pay for special treatment to put your message in front of an unwilling audience. Restricting advertising isn't restricting speech, it's restricting the ability to pay for special treatment for your own speech.
        slg 6y ago
        > Restricting advertising isn't restricting speech, it's restricting the ability to pay for special treatment for your own speech. That isn't the way it works in the US. There are some restrictions on advertising, but is fundamentally protected speech in the US and therefore can't be banned outright.
    - 6y ago
ghoward 6y ago
I think you are somewhat correct here, but I do think there's a solution. As a sibling says, I think changing social media to where users are the _customers_, and not the _product_, is the answer. I wrote about doing that here: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/07/decentralizing-the-internet-and-other-ideas/ https://gavinhoward.com/2020/07/decentralizing-the-internet-... .

Ajedi32 6y ago

> echo chambers, are the very epitome of lack of free speech [...] since members of echo chambers only hear one argument, echo chambers are radicalizing, and they are radicalizing because they don’t have free speech Thanks, that's actually a really insightful way of looking at the problem.