5 ms·

There is simply too much noise/signal. We truly need a protected class of speech/news that cannot lie by law. This is similar to standardizing currency in order

There is simply too much noise/signal. We truly need a protected class of speech/news that cannot lie by law. This is similar to standardizing currency in order to facilitate trade without risk, except for information.

polalavik 5y ago
But who will be the arbiter of truth?
- stuntkite 5y ago
  I’m currently not that busy really. Let me know when the arbiter position opens up and I’ll rearrange my schedule.
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  Web of Trust
- wwweston 5y ago
  Any society that is premised on the rule of law already has to solve that problem in the enforcement; there is no rule of law without arbitration of facts relating to whether the law is upheld or not. So, probably the courts. That's an imperfect solution, but it beats the hell out of the position that any attempt to arbitrate the truth is unacceptably oppressive. On another level: everyone has an obligation to arbitrate the truth as honestly and ably as they're capable, in every domain they have responsibility for, first and foremost in training themselves to be more careful about their own blind spots, tendencies, incentives, and limits, and then in exercising whatever influence and authority they have.
  - errantmind 5y ago
    The courts are specialists in the law, not the truth. I sincerely doubt them deciding what is true and what isn't "beats the hell out of the position that any attempt to arbitrate the truth is unacceptably oppressive". It would quickly turn into a dystopian nightmare. Have you never thought about why freedom of speech is an important and worthy fundamental right?
    - wwweston 5y ago
      > The courts are specialists in the law, not the truth You're confusing the fact that courts are legal institutions directed by legal professionals with the conception that's all they are. In fact, a court is a process. That process is guided by law, and results in legal findings, but it is not limited to the legal sphere when it comes to findings of fact and truth. Where a court lacks specialists in truth, advocates on both sides will find whatever ways they can to bring them to the discussion. And again, there is no such thing as rule of law without examining questions truth. You want liability for poor engineering standards? Courts must ascertain what good engineering standards are. You want murder to be illegal, and people to be tried for violating murder laws? Courts must ascertain evidence, often scientific evidence relating to whether or not someone is guilty. A court without capacity or authority to weigh in on truth cannot apply the law. > Have you never thought about why freedom of speech is an important and worthy fundamental right? Enough to know that speech and robust discourse are in fact a significant part of courtroom proceedings.
      - errantmind 5y ago
        I confused nothing. In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output, except as it relates to the law and their rulings. Once you have a courtroom deciding 'the truth' without respect to the law, that is my exit signal for that particular society.
        wwweston 5y ago
        > In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output LOL nice semantic game. Nobody thinks "arbiter of truth" means that court could, like, rule on a new gravitational constant or something and it would be so. It means that a court is a socially formalized process of speech & discourse for arbitrating who has the better case for accurately understanding a given question of truth. Which again, is absolutely necessary -- there will always be questions about what is or is not true at the heart of every court case. Including already existing content-of-speech related laws like defamation. Creating a class of entities that opt-in to heightened obligations on this front in order to address the problems as the AC was thinking wouldn't change this.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Courts currently do a decent job at determining some truth (whodunnit) – while a lot of innocents get convicted (and sometimes death row'd, in the more backwards corners of the world), it's pretty good within its limited domain of truthseeking.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  We'll end up with licensing of journalists, just like every fascist state. People without a license will not be limited in what they can say, but they will be limited in what they can record or distribute, especially if it crosses state lines or borders. It'll be like what authoritarians say about driving: speaking may be a right, but being heard is a privilege. Free speech will be defined down to making noise with your mouth when outside of the company of anyone who might be offended or exposed to disloyalty. We'll be prosecuted for sending communications across state lines to mislead a child under Texas's Anti-Critical Race Theory statute. We're nearly there already, happy to ban clearly-marked Iranian, Russian, and Chinese state media. Those actions have already been used by private media to ban US journalists by associations as weak as sharing the same opinions as enemy media outlets.
thethethethe 5y ago
This begs the question that truth can be formalized. Who gets to decide what is truth? That's incredible power and it's unlikely that people will agree on who gets to wield it. If some does have that power, how do we know that they won't control the "truth" to build an autocracy?
- whatever1 5y ago
  And don't forget that truth also depends on the observer. If for some reason my sensor is not calibrated properly, my "truth" will be different compared to your truth. It does not mean I necessarily lie, or that I do it intentionally. Academia has been trying for centuries to crack this nut, and it is not easy.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    That's why it's useful to distinguish between misinformation (false statements made by people who sincerely believe them) and disinformation (false statements by people who know them to be false). Philosopher Harry Frankfurter also argues persuasively for a category of bullshit statements, which are made by people who don't care about their truth or falsehood.
ineedasername 5y ago
I don't think that would work. Whether or not something is a lie might only ever be known to the person who says/writes it. It could just be a mistake. Or part of the truth so incomplete as to make someone believe something that isn't true. Human speech just doesn't lend itself to the type of formalism required for this to be possible. If you want the closest approximation, look at legal jargon, specifically for contracts: It is a set of speech standards that evolved over centuries in an effort to reduced ambiguity in transactions. As a result, it is extremely verbose to the point of incomprehensibility by outsiders, and it's still possible to deliberately misuse it without easy detection.
errantmind 5y ago
I understand the appeal but I don't want the government deciding what can and can't be said. Free speech is important for a free society, although we are moving away in recent years with all of the platform censorship and truth labeling. While this censorship is technically legal, these platforms are used like public land and are training generations of people to undervalue freedom of expression.
gnull 5y ago
One crucial difference that seems to break the analogy is that money is a utilitarian tool. It doesn't have an absolute, “true” price or way of managing it. Anything that makes people feel happy and economy grow is good, and is “true” way to run money. Truth is not like that. It's must be absolute, and it should not be defined arbitrarily based on what improves people's well-being. (Or maybe it should, but that's going to be a different kind of truth.)
JoshTko 5y ago
Quixotic devotion to the ideal of free speech is messing up the world since wealthy interests have many ways to sway public opinion as desired. Free speech only works with an educated population - and most countries do not have one.

polalavik 5y ago

But who will be the arbiter of truth?

stuntkite 5y ago
I’m currently not that busy really. Let me know when the arbiter position opens up and I’ll rearrange my schedule.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
Web of Trust
wwweston 5y ago
Any society that is premised on the rule of law already has to solve that problem in the enforcement; there is no rule of law without arbitration of facts relating to whether the law is upheld or not. So, probably the courts. That's an imperfect solution, but it beats the hell out of the position that any attempt to arbitrate the truth is unacceptably oppressive. On another level: everyone has an obligation to arbitrate the truth as honestly and ably as they're capable, in every domain they have responsibility for, first and foremost in training themselves to be more careful about their own blind spots, tendencies, incentives, and limits, and then in exercising whatever influence and authority they have.
- errantmind 5y ago
  The courts are specialists in the law, not the truth. I sincerely doubt them deciding what is true and what isn't "beats the hell out of the position that any attempt to arbitrate the truth is unacceptably oppressive". It would quickly turn into a dystopian nightmare. Have you never thought about why freedom of speech is an important and worthy fundamental right?
  - wwweston 5y ago
    > The courts are specialists in the law, not the truth You're confusing the fact that courts are legal institutions directed by legal professionals with the conception that's all they are. In fact, a court is a process. That process is guided by law, and results in legal findings, but it is not limited to the legal sphere when it comes to findings of fact and truth. Where a court lacks specialists in truth, advocates on both sides will find whatever ways they can to bring them to the discussion. And again, there is no such thing as rule of law without examining questions truth. You want liability for poor engineering standards? Courts must ascertain what good engineering standards are. You want murder to be illegal, and people to be tried for violating murder laws? Courts must ascertain evidence, often scientific evidence relating to whether or not someone is guilty. A court without capacity or authority to weigh in on truth cannot apply the law. > Have you never thought about why freedom of speech is an important and worthy fundamental right? Enough to know that speech and robust discourse are in fact a significant part of courtroom proceedings.
    - errantmind 5y ago
      I confused nothing. In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output, except as it relates to the law and their rulings. Once you have a courtroom deciding 'the truth' without respect to the law, that is my exit signal for that particular society.
      - wwweston 5y ago
        > In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output LOL nice semantic game. Nobody thinks "arbiter of truth" means that court could, like, rule on a new gravitational constant or something and it would be so. It means that a court is a socially formalized process of speech & discourse for arbitrating who has the better case for accurately understanding a given question of truth. Which again, is absolutely necessary -- there will always be questions about what is or is not true at the heart of every court case. Including already existing content-of-speech related laws like defamation. Creating a class of entities that opt-in to heightened obligations on this front in order to address the problems as the AC was thinking wouldn't change this.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
Courts currently do a decent job at determining some truth (whodunnit) – while a lot of innocents get convicted (and sometimes death row'd, in the more backwards corners of the world), it's pretty good within its limited domain of truthseeking.
pessimizer 5y ago
We'll end up with licensing of journalists, just like every fascist state. People without a license will not be limited in what they can say, but they will be limited in what they can record or distribute, especially if it crosses state lines or borders. It'll be like what authoritarians say about driving: speaking may be a right, but being heard is a privilege. Free speech will be defined down to making noise with your mouth when outside of the company of anyone who might be offended or exposed to disloyalty. We'll be prosecuted for sending communications across state lines to mislead a child under Texas's Anti-Critical Race Theory statute. We're nearly there already, happy to ban clearly-marked Iranian, Russian, and Chinese state media. Those actions have already been used by private media to ban US journalists by associations as weak as sharing the same opinions as enemy media outlets.

thethethethe 5y ago

This begs the question that truth can be formalized. Who gets to decide what is truth? That's incredible power and it's unlikely that people will agree on who gets to wield it. If some does have that power, how do we know that they won't control the "truth" to build an autocracy?

whatever1 5y ago
And don't forget that truth also depends on the observer. If for some reason my sensor is not calibrated properly, my "truth" will be different compared to your truth. It does not mean I necessarily lie, or that I do it intentionally. Academia has been trying for centuries to crack this nut, and it is not easy.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  That's why it's useful to distinguish between misinformation (false statements made by people who sincerely believe them) and disinformation (false statements by people who know them to be false). Philosopher Harry Frankfurter also argues persuasively for a category of bullshit statements, which are made by people who don't care about their truth or falsehood.

ineedasername 5y ago

I don't think that would work. Whether or not something is a lie might only ever be known to the person who says/writes it. It could just be a mistake. Or part of the truth so incomplete as to make someone believe something that isn't true. Human speech just doesn't lend itself to the type of formalism required for this to be possible. If you want the closest approximation, look at legal jargon, specifically for contracts: It is a set of speech standards that evolved over centuries in an effort to reduced ambiguity in transactions. As a result, it is extremely verbose to the point of incomprehensibility by outsiders, and it's still possible to deliberately misuse it without easy detection.

errantmind 5y ago

I understand the appeal but I don't want the government deciding what can and can't be said. Free speech is important for a free society, although we are moving away in recent years with all of the platform censorship and truth labeling. While this censorship is technically legal, these platforms are used like public land and are training generations of people to undervalue freedom of expression.

gnull 5y ago

One crucial difference that seems to break the analogy is that money is a utilitarian tool. It doesn't have an absolute, “true” price or way of managing it. Anything that makes people feel happy and economy grow is good, and is “true” way to run money. Truth is not like that. It's must be absolute, and it should not be defined arbitrarily based on what improves people's well-being. (Or maybe it should, but that's going to be a different kind of truth.)

JoshTko 5y ago

Quixotic devotion to the ideal of free speech is messing up the world since wealthy interests have many ways to sway public opinion as desired. Free speech only works with an educated population - and most countries do not have one.