4 ms·

In every discussion around censorship on HN we see a very large portion agreeing that censorship is good when targeting the right kind of people for the right k

by belorn 5y ago

In every discussion around censorship on HN we see a very large portion agreeing that censorship is good when targeting the right kind of people for the right kind of reasons, and bad otherwise. One side thinking that companies or government are enlightened enough to figure it out, the other disagreeing that such enlightened entity doesn't exist. It is about trust, not hardware vs wetware. I would not trust a AI to do it better than an moderator. The least harmful method of censorship are strict defined legal systems written by democratic elected people, and as the article demonstrate, it has some flaws. Everyone can agree that some people has been inspired by fake news to commit crime, leading to death and suffering. Everyone would also agree that without fake news there would still be people doing crime that leads to death and suffering. Crime is a problem, and censorship as a tool to combat crime has its up and downs in popularity. It does not however change the issue of trust.

murgindrag 5y ago
I think intentional lying is special, and should be an exception to censorship. I don't feel okay censoring things I disagree with, even strongly (e.g. hate speech, taboo topics, sexual moores, and whatnot), but on intentional falsehoods, I think it falls into a different bucket. We have good precedent here: - Slander laws - Libel laws - Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater - Etc. The problem is that an unregulated free market will choose memes over truths. There needs to be some correction there. I'm not quite sure what that correction ought to be. I don't think it should be mobs, tech companies, or governments. I do think the processes we have in place right now for dealing with untrue speech, with due process, make a lot of sense to me, though. Perhaps they might be expanded such that: - There isn't a $200k barrier to dealing with slander/libel - Some places (for example, academics and government employees) have criminal liability for intentionally lying or withholding information I'm not quite sure, but we do need to change incentive structures, or we'll be overwhelmed with misinformation.
- wccrawford 5y ago
  Right, but let's say someone claims that something is a conspiracy. Are they intentionally lying, or do they believe it? How can you tell the difference? Many people claim that each instance is emphatically not a conspiracy, but sometimes it turns out it really is a conspiracy. People on both sides of the argument believe they are correct, but one side is wrong. (And probably even both sides, when it comes to details.) I don't think "I believed it" is much of an excuse in the situations you list above. I searched a bit. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-libel-slander-key-elements-claim.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-libel-sla... says that there are 3 ways it could be defamation: lying, disregarding the facts, or acting negligently. So it's kind of about lying, but more than that.
  - murgindrag 5y ago
    I think the standards in the law are pretty clear: "Beyond the shadow of a doubt" for criminal law, and a "preponderance of evidence" for civil law. Most of the instances I've seen that I really care about fall very far in the clear of those standards: - My local school administration lies for political benefit and to "manage" parents. That's 100% legal right now. It shouldn't be. - A stalker is spreading false rumors about me. That's illegal, but would require a massively expensive litigation to bring within control. - A local elite university fabricates data to support professor startups. That's at the edge of legal. It should be illegal. ... and so on. If we had effective enforcement for stuff that's NOT in the gray zone, I'd be pretty happy. As for the who-killed-JFK, fake moon landing, area 51, etc. type conspiracies, I think those should generally fall under free speech. If you can document a news network is intentionally fabricating conspiracies for ratings and money, that another matter, but if it's a crazy uncle in tin foil hats? He might be crazy, but that shouldn't be illegal. And ultimately, I think people ought to be able to discuss conspiracies. There are a lot of conspiracies. I've seen a few, and most aren't things the public ever finds out about. There are: - Actual conspiracies, which generally do a lot of harm. - Conspiracy theories, most of which are unfounded. There's little (but not zero) correlation between the two. Ultimately, though, uncovering actual conspiracies requires wading through fake ones too. If the conspiracy comes from a fake news network where there's _documentation_ that they're intentionally lying? That's a different story. And yes, I know most won't get caught. But even if a few do, market incentive structures change dramatically, especially for larger organizations.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Why abandon all priors? Take the case of someone whose previous statements show an acknowledgement or awareness that proposition X is not true. If they go back to claiming proposition x the next day and the next and the next, then they're lying. This isn't a philosophical problem.
- salawat 5y ago
  > Some places (for example, academics and government employees Got a list? I've got a list of incidents of government employees intentionally lying to their overseers that just keeps growing, so I really have problems with the assertion that these measures exist in any other way than mere unenforced notional statutes.
  - murgindrag 5y ago
    I do have a list, but it's not one I'm planning to go public with. As far as I can tell, no measures exist: * It's perfectly legal for most government employees to lie. * Academics can lie so long as they don't engage in research fraud as defined by the OMB, which is a rather complex line. Most can find ways to lie without coming close to that line, and when they do, the punishment is a slap-on-the-wrist.
anigbrowl 5y ago
I don't see the point of your comment. I made it very clear that I agree with the basic proposition that censorship is bad, but that we should also talk about vexing problem of intentional lying. It's perplexing to me that you launched into an attack on an argument that nobody was making.

by belorn 5y ago

murgindrag 5y ago

I think intentional lying is special, and should be an exception to censorship. I don't feel okay censoring things I disagree with, even strongly (e.g. hate speech, taboo topics, sexual moores, and whatnot), but on intentional falsehoods, I think it falls into a different bucket. We have good precedent here: - Slander laws - Libel laws - Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater - Etc. The problem is that an unregulated free market will choose memes over truths. There needs to be some correction there. I'm not quite sure what that correction ought to be. I don't think it should be mobs, tech companies, or governments. I do think the processes we have in place right now for dealing with untrue speech, with due process, make a lot of sense to me, though. Perhaps they might be expanded such that: - There isn't a $200k barrier to dealing with slander/libel - Some places (for example, academics and government employees) have criminal liability for intentionally lying or withholding information I'm not quite sure, but we do need to change incentive structures, or we'll be overwhelmed with misinformation.

wccrawford 5y ago
Right, but let's say someone claims that something is a conspiracy. Are they intentionally lying, or do they believe it? How can you tell the difference? Many people claim that each instance is emphatically not a conspiracy, but sometimes it turns out it really is a conspiracy. People on both sides of the argument believe they are correct, but one side is wrong. (And probably even both sides, when it comes to details.) I don't think "I believed it" is much of an excuse in the situations you list above. I searched a bit. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-libel-slander-key-elements-claim.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-libel-sla... says that there are 3 ways it could be defamation: lying, disregarding the facts, or acting negligently. So it's kind of about lying, but more than that.
- murgindrag 5y ago
  I think the standards in the law are pretty clear: "Beyond the shadow of a doubt" for criminal law, and a "preponderance of evidence" for civil law. Most of the instances I've seen that I really care about fall very far in the clear of those standards: - My local school administration lies for political benefit and to "manage" parents. That's 100% legal right now. It shouldn't be. - A stalker is spreading false rumors about me. That's illegal, but would require a massively expensive litigation to bring within control. - A local elite university fabricates data to support professor startups. That's at the edge of legal. It should be illegal. ... and so on. If we had effective enforcement for stuff that's NOT in the gray zone, I'd be pretty happy. As for the who-killed-JFK, fake moon landing, area 51, etc. type conspiracies, I think those should generally fall under free speech. If you can document a news network is intentionally fabricating conspiracies for ratings and money, that another matter, but if it's a crazy uncle in tin foil hats? He might be crazy, but that shouldn't be illegal. And ultimately, I think people ought to be able to discuss conspiracies. There are a lot of conspiracies. I've seen a few, and most aren't things the public ever finds out about. There are: - Actual conspiracies, which generally do a lot of harm. - Conspiracy theories, most of which are unfounded. There's little (but not zero) correlation between the two. Ultimately, though, uncovering actual conspiracies requires wading through fake ones too. If the conspiracy comes from a fake news network where there's _documentation_ that they're intentionally lying? That's a different story. And yes, I know most won't get caught. But even if a few do, market incentive structures change dramatically, especially for larger organizations.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Why abandon all priors? Take the case of someone whose previous statements show an acknowledgement or awareness that proposition X is not true. If they go back to claiming proposition x the next day and the next and the next, then they're lying. This isn't a philosophical problem.
salawat 5y ago
> Some places (for example, academics and government employees Got a list? I've got a list of incidents of government employees intentionally lying to their overseers that just keeps growing, so I really have problems with the assertion that these measures exist in any other way than mere unenforced notional statutes.
- murgindrag 5y ago
  I do have a list, but it's not one I'm planning to go public with. As far as I can tell, no measures exist: * It's perfectly legal for most government employees to lie. * Academics can lie so long as they don't engage in research fraud as defined by the OMB, which is a rather complex line. Most can find ways to lie without coming close to that line, and when they do, the punishment is a slap-on-the-wrist.

anigbrowl 5y ago

I don't see the point of your comment. I made it very clear that I agree with the basic proposition that censorship is bad, but that we should also talk about vexing problem of intentional lying. It's perplexing to me that you launched into an attack on an argument that nobody was making.