5 ms·

First, the comments that cause this are so from "establishment opinions" that you can be well outside them and still not come close to what they're talking abou

by pron 6y ago

First, the comments that cause this are so from "establishment opinions" that you can be well outside them and still not come close to what they're talking about. Second, what good is freedom of speech if a platform is not free to choose which speech to amplify? Seems like some have started to understand freedom of speech as "you're free to publish exactly what I tell you to publish!" Freedom of speech also means that I'm free not to repeat what you say. This understanding of freedom of speech is the one that has been at the very core of media companies and educational institutions for ages; they're free to shape their reputation by choosing which speech they publish.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
Free speech sounds a lot like free market when you put it like that. I mean, there's "technically" a free market, but advertising works and thus clearly it's possible for poor quality, expensive products to beat out cheap, good quality ones. Same way, there's "technically" free speech. But if corporations can use their billions to trumpet specific politics only, then it's also possible for poor quality, expensive opinions and speech to beat out cheap, good quality ones. Note: I am not saying the comments are good quality ideas, just making an analogy based on parent's comment.
throwawaysea 6y ago
> what good is freedom of speech if a platform is not free to choose which speech to amplify What good is freedom of speech when powerful and influential organizations (like Twitter or Facebook) control virtually all speech in society? Above a certain size, these platforms are public utilities and public town squares. For the right to free speech to be at all practical and meaningful, they must be required to platform all legal speech.
- pron 6y ago
  > For the right to free speech to be at all practical and meaningful, they must be required to platform all legal speech. So newspapers will be required to publish any story, no matter how true? Universities will be required to teach any theory, no matter how crackpot? Twitter will be required to promote porn just as it does other content? > What good is freedom of speech when powerful and influential organizations (like Twitter or Facebook) control virtually all speech in society? But they don't. You have huge, successful websites devoted to porn. A publication like Quillette builds its reputation around pseudoscience and is free to do so. You have entire cable news networks devoted to conspiracy theories. But yes, more mainstream venues try to shape their reputation by not amplifying more fringe speech. Not only has this always been the case, but that's what everyone understood "free speech" means. You have more mainstream publications and fringe ones.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    I’m not proposing that newspapers publish any story submitted by the general public as a news article, if that’s what you’re taking away. For newspapers I am proposing that their comment section should be free of censorship. For social media I am proposing the same. That also means their algorithms would need to “promote” things in a content neutral way. I’m also proposing that society is served better when ideas from powerful publishers (like journalists at big newspapers) are easily challenged by the public via features like comments sections. I think we’re getting a bit off topic but since you mentioned it - universities already teach many crackpot theories - the social “science” fields are full of them (https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studi...). But they don’t teach the alternative viewpoint to those crackpot theories. As institutions with tremendous power, they influence society greatly but their commitment to a one-sided biased environment serves to only amplify one ideology, and this unbalanced outcome is effectively propagandizing all of society. Giant social media platforms are similarly problematic, because their degree of reach and network effects give them power other new social networks cannot mirror or challenge. Their policies restricting content that they don’t like ends up amplifying one worldview disproportionately while shutting down others, which also is effectively propagandist. In both cases these institutions are as powerful and influential as nations’ governments, and their choices to promote certain speech or censor certain speech are as damaging as the government taking such action. We have outsourced the ability to exercise fundamental rights like free speech and free thought to spaces that are legally non public but really should be held to the public standard. Your claim is that there are “huge, successful sites” or other media that fall outside the control of these institutions I am complaining about. However, that’s not really the whole truth because the scale of those alternatives is simply completely different. Facebook has more users than any country and Twitter is probably close to that as well. Universities have no diversity of thought and there isn’t much of an alternative to the university system at all. It doesn’t matter if some other alternative site could have millions of users carrying speech blocked on Facebook or Twitter, because the amplification of ideas allowed on the biggest platforms will drown out all others. These are really public squares that should be held to public regulation, including upholding the right to free speech. As an aside, your inaccurate and uncharitable characterization of Quillette as building a reputation around “pseudoscience”, when it is actually built around high quality critical thought, makes me think you’re on one side of this ideological war and happy with the status quo because your ideology is currently winning the power struggle by censoring/deplatforming dissenting views. But what you’re labeling as fringe wouldn’t be fringe if it was given a fair chance to be heard and amplified in various institutions or platforms. Because ideologues have tried to suppress and diminish challenging views in aggressive and unfair ways, these ideas are in lesser prominence than they deserve.

by pron 6y ago

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

Free speech sounds a lot like free market when you put it like that. I mean, there's "technically" a free market, but advertising works and thus clearly it's possible for poor quality, expensive products to beat out cheap, good quality ones. Same way, there's "technically" free speech. But if corporations can use their billions to trumpet specific politics only, then it's also possible for poor quality, expensive opinions and speech to beat out cheap, good quality ones. Note: I am not saying the comments are good quality ideas, just making an analogy based on parent's comment.

throwawaysea 6y ago

> what good is freedom of speech if a platform is not free to choose which speech to amplify What good is freedom of speech when powerful and influential organizations (like Twitter or Facebook) control virtually all speech in society? Above a certain size, these platforms are public utilities and public town squares. For the right to free speech to be at all practical and meaningful, they must be required to platform all legal speech.

pron 6y ago
> For the right to free speech to be at all practical and meaningful, they must be required to platform all legal speech. So newspapers will be required to publish any story, no matter how true? Universities will be required to teach any theory, no matter how crackpot? Twitter will be required to promote porn just as it does other content? > What good is freedom of speech when powerful and influential organizations (like Twitter or Facebook) control virtually all speech in society? But they don't. You have huge, successful websites devoted to porn. A publication like Quillette builds its reputation around pseudoscience and is free to do so. You have entire cable news networks devoted to conspiracy theories. But yes, more mainstream venues try to shape their reputation by not amplifying more fringe speech. Not only has this always been the case, but that's what everyone understood "free speech" means. You have more mainstream publications and fringe ones.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I’m not proposing that newspapers publish any story submitted by the general public as a news article, if that’s what you’re taking away. For newspapers I am proposing that their comment section should be free of censorship. For social media I am proposing the same. That also means their algorithms would need to “promote” things in a content neutral way. I’m also proposing that society is served better when ideas from powerful publishers (like journalists at big newspapers) are easily challenged by the public via features like comments sections. I think we’re getting a bit off topic but since you mentioned it - universities already teach many crackpot theories - the social “science” fields are full of them (https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studi...). But they don’t teach the alternative viewpoint to those crackpot theories. As institutions with tremendous power, they influence society greatly but their commitment to a one-sided biased environment serves to only amplify one ideology, and this unbalanced outcome is effectively propagandizing all of society. Giant social media platforms are similarly problematic, because their degree of reach and network effects give them power other new social networks cannot mirror or challenge. Their policies restricting content that they don’t like ends up amplifying one worldview disproportionately while shutting down others, which also is effectively propagandist. In both cases these institutions are as powerful and influential as nations’ governments, and their choices to promote certain speech or censor certain speech are as damaging as the government taking such action. We have outsourced the ability to exercise fundamental rights like free speech and free thought to spaces that are legally non public but really should be held to the public standard. Your claim is that there are “huge, successful sites” or other media that fall outside the control of these institutions I am complaining about. However, that’s not really the whole truth because the scale of those alternatives is simply completely different. Facebook has more users than any country and Twitter is probably close to that as well. Universities have no diversity of thought and there isn’t much of an alternative to the university system at all. It doesn’t matter if some other alternative site could have millions of users carrying speech blocked on Facebook or Twitter, because the amplification of ideas allowed on the biggest platforms will drown out all others. These are really public squares that should be held to public regulation, including upholding the right to free speech. As an aside, your inaccurate and uncharitable characterization of Quillette as building a reputation around “pseudoscience”, when it is actually built around high quality critical thought, makes me think you’re on one side of this ideological war and happy with the status quo because your ideology is currently winning the power struggle by censoring/deplatforming dissenting views. But what you’re labeling as fringe wouldn’t be fringe if it was given a fair chance to be heard and amplified in various institutions or platforms. Because ideologues have tried to suppress and diminish challenging views in aggressive and unfair ways, these ideas are in lesser prominence than they deserve.