4 ms·

YouTube deciding what is and isn't misinformation has a positive side effect in that it indirectly protects the first amendment through the middle ground of pri

YouTube deciding what is and isn't misinformation has a positive side effect in that it indirectly protects the first amendment through the middle ground of private voluntary self-regulation. 1A proponents need to understand that there's a grey area between outright incitement to violence and otherwise. Within that grey area lies conspiracy theories and hate speech which can motivate actual harmful and illegal activity downstream if these ideas become sufficiently widespread. It's plausible that the unmoderated hate speech on 8chan motivated numerous lone wolf shooters, given how many manifestos have been posted there. While we may want this speech to be legal (I largely do), we should not want to voluntarily assist in the spreading of this speech above and beyond the legal requirements of 1A. Anti-1A sentiment is growing on the political left and that sentiment isn't totally invalid if we zoom into specific examples of speech motivating heinous outcomes. So nipping a real problem in the bud with private self-regulation seems to be the least slippery slopey outcome of them all.

shockeychap 5y ago
> Anti-1A sentiment is growing on the political left That statement, if you stop to think about what it means for all other freedoms, should genuinely scare you. Freedom only matters if it includes the right to offend others. Anything less isn't freedom at all. If you genuinely believe in the principles of freedom, you will trust that the free exchange of all ideas - good and bad, right and wrong - is the best and only way to bring out the truth. All of this hearkens back to dark ideas in which one class of people exercise power over another. Remember what they say about power.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  "Free exchange of ideas... best and only way to bring out the truth." I don't believe this to be true. I only think the 1A is a good idea because it's too easy for an authoritarian government to co-opt speech restrictions. The free exchange in itself isn't what I care about. People on the whole are pretty stupid, tribal and irrational creatures. I see no reason why a free exchange of ideas can't sometimes lead to a fascist or communist state if certain ideas get enough social contagion.
  - shockeychap 5y ago
    > I see no reason why a free exchange of ideas can't sometimes lead to a fascist or communist state if certain ideas get enough social contagion. That's a fair observation, and making freedom a right comes with a host of risk and peril. But isn't that where the criticality of learning from history comes into play? Furthermore, name one dictator or authoritarian regime whose rise to power wasn't predicated on the necessity of government intervention and rule to protect the people. Everyone from Nero to Boneparte to Hitler to Chavez all claimed the mantle of necessity and greater good, and look where they all led. The back-and-forth balance between freedom and containment of bad ideas can be tricky, but if you think you'll solve the problem of future authoritarianism through present-day authoritarianism, I don't know what to say.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      Restrictions on speech aren't about a utilitarian greater good, which is the logic of giving to person A by taking from person B because that results in a perceived net utility benefit. They're in the same category of things as drunk driving laws and assault laws, in that they're designed to protect person A from person B by limiting what person B can do, which according to right-libertarianism is the just role of the state. You probably already agree that person A shouldn't be allowed to incite direct violence against person B. The thing is, hate speech laws for example aren't categorically different, since hate speech by A can lead to violence against B downstream. It's purely a difference in degree, difficulty to get right, and slippery slope risk. I've thought about the case of Hitler and am unsold either way. On the one hand, the Weimar Republic had hate speech laws, and so in this N=1 they weren't effective at preventing the outcome they were supposed to prevent. On the other hand, it could be argued that such laws were merely too lenient. Hitler was genuinely popular and got 43 percent of the vote through mostly unfettered speech. He convinced people that his regime was a good idea. So this is a demonstration to me that unfettered speech can actually lead to the kind of outcomes that anti-1A people fear. Overall I just don't know enough about that history to say.
- belltaco 5y ago
  The right is anti-free speech too, for example I did not see anyone defending the govt take down of Jihadist and anti-American websites, even though they were just words. They are only pro speech when it comes to misinformation and fake news that their side falls victim too, much more than the left.
  - umvi 5y ago
    > I did not see anyone defending the govt take down If no one was defending the takedowns, then that means people generally weren't in favor of them
    - belltaco 5y ago
      Exactly. But if you read the GP's interpretation they're all about free speech. Where were the free speech absolutists where people's speech other than "their side" was affected? This makes me doubt if they really believe their own principles.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Actual calls to violence are a clear line in free speech. Telling someone to blow up markets and commit terrorism is something everyone should be opposed to.
    - belltaco 5y ago
      There was a lot of speech other than direct and immediate calls to violence that were/are censored. Regardless, if you read the GP's post, they're saying 'words' should never be banned. So I don't see the making an exception for even the kind of violent speech that you stated. Where were these free speech absolutists back then when their personal misinformation and racist speech wasn't being affected, but others' was? Makes me doubt their principles.
      - chrismcb 5y ago
        Most free speech proponents agree that calling for violence is wrong. To ask extent encouraging others to break the law is wrong (to an extent, because I've way to get rid of an unjust last is to break it)
vorpalhex 5y ago
At one point Hollywood self censored depictions of same sex couples, transgender folks and even interracial marriages. Is that really the side you want to root for? Freedom of speech - not only as a legal value but an ethical one - is the only basis on which we can avoid letting a dominant voice shut out unloved truths.
- BrightGlow 5y ago
  Please avoid making this argument, it's a false equivalence. Youtube is not self-censoring those things. If you want me to ask a similarly misleading line of questioning based only on trying to draw false equivalence from principles: Currently Youtube is self-censoring porn. Is the side of "youtube should become a porn site" really the side you want to root for?
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    I think you don't understand what false equivalence is. > False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. Are you suggesting Youtube, a media company, and Hollywood, a collection of media companies, are somehow not comparable?
    - BrightGlow 5y ago
      No. I don't want to continue this discussion based on this line of questioning, sorry. Let's be good people and not fight, I'm sure you're a kind soul.

shockeychap 5y ago

> Anti-1A sentiment is growing on the political left That statement, if you stop to think about what it means for all other freedoms, should genuinely scare you. Freedom only matters if it includes the right to offend others. Anything less isn't freedom at all. If you genuinely believe in the principles of freedom, you will trust that the free exchange of all ideas - good and bad, right and wrong - is the best and only way to bring out the truth. All of this hearkens back to dark ideas in which one class of people exercise power over another. Remember what they say about power.

fighterpilot 5y ago
"Free exchange of ideas... best and only way to bring out the truth." I don't believe this to be true. I only think the 1A is a good idea because it's too easy for an authoritarian government to co-opt speech restrictions. The free exchange in itself isn't what I care about. People on the whole are pretty stupid, tribal and irrational creatures. I see no reason why a free exchange of ideas can't sometimes lead to a fascist or communist state if certain ideas get enough social contagion.
- shockeychap 5y ago
  > I see no reason why a free exchange of ideas can't sometimes lead to a fascist or communist state if certain ideas get enough social contagion. That's a fair observation, and making freedom a right comes with a host of risk and peril. But isn't that where the criticality of learning from history comes into play? Furthermore, name one dictator or authoritarian regime whose rise to power wasn't predicated on the necessity of government intervention and rule to protect the people. Everyone from Nero to Boneparte to Hitler to Chavez all claimed the mantle of necessity and greater good, and look where they all led. The back-and-forth balance between freedom and containment of bad ideas can be tricky, but if you think you'll solve the problem of future authoritarianism through present-day authoritarianism, I don't know what to say.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    Restrictions on speech aren't about a utilitarian greater good, which is the logic of giving to person A by taking from person B because that results in a perceived net utility benefit. They're in the same category of things as drunk driving laws and assault laws, in that they're designed to protect person A from person B by limiting what person B can do, which according to right-libertarianism is the just role of the state. You probably already agree that person A shouldn't be allowed to incite direct violence against person B. The thing is, hate speech laws for example aren't categorically different, since hate speech by A can lead to violence against B downstream. It's purely a difference in degree, difficulty to get right, and slippery slope risk. I've thought about the case of Hitler and am unsold either way. On the one hand, the Weimar Republic had hate speech laws, and so in this N=1 they weren't effective at preventing the outcome they were supposed to prevent. On the other hand, it could be argued that such laws were merely too lenient. Hitler was genuinely popular and got 43 percent of the vote through mostly unfettered speech. He convinced people that his regime was a good idea. So this is a demonstration to me that unfettered speech can actually lead to the kind of outcomes that anti-1A people fear. Overall I just don't know enough about that history to say.
belltaco 5y ago
The right is anti-free speech too, for example I did not see anyone defending the govt take down of Jihadist and anti-American websites, even though they were just words. They are only pro speech when it comes to misinformation and fake news that their side falls victim too, much more than the left.
- umvi 5y ago
  > I did not see anyone defending the govt take down If no one was defending the takedowns, then that means people generally weren't in favor of them
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Exactly. But if you read the GP's interpretation they're all about free speech. Where were the free speech absolutists where people's speech other than "their side" was affected? This makes me doubt if they really believe their own principles.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Actual calls to violence are a clear line in free speech. Telling someone to blow up markets and commit terrorism is something everyone should be opposed to.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    There was a lot of speech other than direct and immediate calls to violence that were/are censored. Regardless, if you read the GP's post, they're saying 'words' should never be banned. So I don't see the making an exception for even the kind of violent speech that you stated. Where were these free speech absolutists back then when their personal misinformation and racist speech wasn't being affected, but others' was? Makes me doubt their principles.
    - chrismcb 5y ago
      Most free speech proponents agree that calling for violence is wrong. To ask extent encouraging others to break the law is wrong (to an extent, because I've way to get rid of an unjust last is to break it)

vorpalhex 5y ago

At one point Hollywood self censored depictions of same sex couples, transgender folks and even interracial marriages. Is that really the side you want to root for? Freedom of speech - not only as a legal value but an ethical one - is the only basis on which we can avoid letting a dominant voice shut out unloved truths.

BrightGlow 5y ago
Please avoid making this argument, it's a false equivalence. Youtube is not self-censoring those things. If you want me to ask a similarly misleading line of questioning based only on trying to draw false equivalence from principles: Currently Youtube is self-censoring porn. Is the side of "youtube should become a porn site" really the side you want to root for?
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  I think you don't understand what false equivalence is. > False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. Are you suggesting Youtube, a media company, and Hollywood, a collection of media companies, are somehow not comparable?
  - BrightGlow 5y ago
    No. I don't want to continue this discussion based on this line of questioning, sorry. Let's be good people and not fight, I'm sure you're a kind soul.