6 ms·

Society in general has been making chilling moves away from free speech, and this has been accelerated by the pandemic. I hope the pendulum will swing the other

Society in general has been making chilling moves away from free speech, and this has been accelerated by the pandemic. I hope the pendulum will swing the other way, but it's also possible to cross a tipping point where we just lose our way.

BeefWellington 5y ago
It's funny to me because Free Speech is one of those topics on its own that doesn't permit nuance in my experience - either you're for it or you're a dictator/sheep/lapdog/etc. In reality though, laws have been limiting speech for hundreds of years, and those laws and judgements are enforced by the government. The idea that it is sacrosanct and is (and should "continue" to be) unabated is already not what happens. The usual example is about shouting bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded movie theatre but those are more about mischief than any freedom to say a thing (you aren't punished for the words alone). However, Libel and Slander laws exist and have for a long long time and are limits on free speech. I'm not in favor of draconian laws designed to chill debate but it's important to recognize that limits already exist and how we navigate where to draw the line is the key I think.
- spamizbad 5y ago
  Nobody complained when social media sites shut down ISIL videos or Taliban content. And why would they? Those are bad ideas from bad people! But anti-vaccine content? Why, that could be your neighbor! And your neighbor doesn't deserve to be censored (unlike the evil people who definitely needed to be)
  - evv555 5y ago
    That's a very selective interpretation on events. ISIS propaganda spread like wildfire through Twitter. The administration did nothing and the media barely made a peep about the root cause until the horses had already left the barn. None of these "concerned" stakeholders gave a shit about the socially corrosive nature of social media and they still don't beyond their own interests.
    - rchaud 5y ago
      Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though.
      - evv555 5y ago
        >Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. Before they were terrorists they were "insurgents" of the "Arab Spring". Something that the administration and Twitter/SM were more than willing to lean into before they lost control of the situation. >I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though. That's more a function of your age and filter bubble not whether there was ISIS propaganda which is well documented.
        rchaud 5y ago
        What remains undocumented however is your claim that no action was taken.
        evv555 5y ago
        This is a very strange approach to discourse. What action do you think was taken and where's the documentation? The administration was openly showing support for the Arab Spring mobs and even built up a military coalition in its support. Lack of knowledge on current events isn't the same as taking a skeptical stance.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        I mean, this isn't really true: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1370/close-parts-internet-where-isis/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpomete... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-plans-shake-up-in-propaganda-war-against-the-islamic-state/2016/01/08/d482255c-b585-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used-to-combat-isis-propaganda-is-enlisted-by-democratic-group-to-counter-trumps-coronavirus-messaging/2020/05/01/6bed5f70-8a5b-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07/hillary-clinton-wants-tech-companies-to-help-disrupt-isis-what-does-that-even-mean/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07... ... Social media companies actually had a hugely successful anti-ISIS recruiting and propoganda campaign. This was something that everyone wanted a bit of credit for, but was ultimately totally uncontroversial because terrorists bad and no one complains when companies deplatform them.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >Nobody complained when social media sites shut down ISIL videos or Taliban content. People did. You didn't hear about it because they were brushed aside as free speech extremists and wacko libertarians.
    - LudvigVanHassen 5y ago
      Or they were kids and too young to comment or understand the situation. I would have protested then if I were an adult with my life understanding now.
  - ioslipstream 5y ago
    Imagine if they used their powers to shut down something that's actually harmful, like, I don't know, sex trafficking. If they put as much energy into stifling human trafficking as they did dissenting covid opinions, we might make a dent in it.
  - throwawayjeje 5y ago
    I didn't cheer. I don't cheer unless the videos are snuff (a beheading) or pornographic (not in ISIS' case). For the later I wouldn't even erase such content from the internet. All I demand is a proper age verification system for viewers and the actors. More guarantees that the actresses aren't, in fact, being abused by their situation would be nice - what can I say, I dare to dream.
    - judahmeek 5y ago
      So you agree that there should be restrictions on speech that negatively impacts public health then. You just disagree on where the line should be drawn.
  - mariodiana 5y ago
    Those were essentially recruitment videos for enemies we were literally at war with. If we are literally at war with individuals skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccines, we should say so.
- abecedarius 5y ago
  > either you're for it or you're a dictator/sheep/lapdog/etc. This is the nature of the things we come to see as rights. Why is an X a 'right' and not just a nice idea? Because of a history of political entrepreneurs pushing, pushing, pushing against it -- it's just a reasonable tradeoff for this case, can't you see? A right is a Schelling fence beyond which the 'reasonable' tradeoffs must face a much stronger presumption against them. Of course the world is complicated. One of the most salient complications is the ubiquity through history of clever people with justifications why they need power over others. When in this context you bring up the indisputable fact that no human question is 100% clear, the effect is to weaken the fence.
- xwowsersx 5y ago
  This is true, there are no absolute rights. However, the examples you cite have no resemblance to the stifling of careful discussion which might, in some way, question the wisdom of universal vaccination or inquire about the long-term effects, etc. That kind of speech is qualitatively different from incitement to violence and other clear and present danger cases. So I'm not sure how pointing out that in some abstract sense rights are never absolute has any bearing on this discussion. The chilling of speech in the public square that we are currently witnessing has no clear limits and the logic used to justify it ends up making this tantamount to setting up some kind of a wrongspeak standard. In a free society, individuals must be uninhibited in their investigation of the wisdom of public health policy. Equating this to the "yeling fire in a crowded theater" case is silly.
- Negitivefrags 5y ago
  You could use this exact argument form to argue that there are limits to your “right to life” as well. After all, there are laws that have existed to limit that right for hundreds of years. The death penalty. My point is that just because there have been laws in the past, that changes nothing about if something should be a right or not.
- chroem- 5y ago
  > In reality though, laws have been limiting speech for hundreds of years, and those laws and judgements are enforced by the government. The idea that it is sacrosanct and is (and should "continue" to be) unabated is already not what happens. The usual example is about shouting bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded movie theatre but those are more about mischief than any freedom to say a thing (you aren't punished for the words alone). However, Libel and Slander laws exist and have for a long long time and are limits on free speech. Why is it that I have never heard these laws cited outside the context of justifying additional restrictions on freedom of speech, and especially restrictions on political speech? Without digging for an example, when is the last time you personally encountered someone who was prosecuted for saying a naughty word in a movie theater or saying mean things about someone online?
  - Frondo 5y ago
    Well, a few days ago we had this article on HN... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682582 (Tesla suing people for defamation over social media posts)
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Academics have warned that their faculties get more ideological and contrarian views are suppressed, people begin to self-censor. There is certainly a very real threat to freedom of expression, opinion, speech or whatever you want to call it. I think in exchange we should recognize this a well. That is of course also fundamentally contrary to your lapdog characterization.
systemvoltage 5y ago
I’ll be voting for anyone that advocates civil liberties. Another thing that is not talked about enough is how small minority of people in Silicon Valley gets to dictate how the rest of the world sees information. Algorithms and things that Big Tech is doing behind the closed doors to influence the world. It doesn’t matter left or right, what matters is the unbelievable power of say 1000 people in SV that figured out content engagement algorithms at Google, Twitter, FB, Apple News, etc. The most powerful people on earth are those that govern algorithms that preferentially show content to people. In China that’s their Big Tech fused with CCP, in the west it is SV Big Tech shunning anything that’s not woke. FB is an exception but even within FB there is a rout.
- andrekandre 5y ago
  > small minority of people in Silicon Valley gets to dictate how the rest of the world sees information if you think that minority is confined to silicon valley and "big tech" i think you'll be in for a rude awakening, but in this case youtube removing anti-vax videos when its obvious disinformation is a good thing imo
- 8note 5y ago
  The government has not stepped up to host a social media site that would be bound by the constitution
yibg 5y ago
I’m not sure if this is true. I think there has always been restrictions to free speech, it’s just what’s not allowed has changed over the years. Try having pro Soviet material in the 70s.
- evv555 5y ago
  I guess it depends on what you mean by "pro Soviet material" but Academia and adjacent fields were full of USSR sympathizers in the 70s. People like Marcuse were/are very influential figures.
  - ioslipstream 5y ago
    One could say the current socialist state of academia got it's start in the 70s.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    Marcuse was a communist but not pro-Soviet by most measures. Academia did indeed have quite a few Soviet sympathetic figure. Tbh, I'm not sure why the gp picked the 70's. The cold war was mostly thawing then as the failure of the USSR was becoming visible (though Reagan partly reignited it in 80s). The 1950s was a period where real and suspected sympathizers of the USSR were drummed out of their positions in academia, entertainment and elsewhere. The witch hunts died down in the 1960s as US society relaxed a bit itself.
ahallock 5y ago
We need to start applying free speech to internet platforms as well -- an updated first amendment. Times have changed and these platforms can deny speech, effectively silencing political opposition. The people cheering it on are happy because their political opponents are being silenced. But imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. If you're a coward, you won't speak out against it. You'd rather relish your opponents getting deplatformed.
- les_diabolique 5y ago
  How does this apply to the rest of the world?
- goatlover 5y ago
  Anti-vax and ant-mask conspiracy theories aren't legitimate political opposition being deplatformed. They're dangerously false views making a pandemic worse. It doesn't matter who spreads them.
chillly 5y ago
What has 'social media' got to do with free speech? Who is stopping you saying what you want? If what you mean is that what write or say is not beamed on everyone's phone, that is not a free speech issue, it's that you can't persuade anyone to publish what you say, which is totally different.
jasonlaramburu 5y ago
>Society in general has been making chilling moves away from free speech Private companies in the US have always had the right to refuse a customer anytime, for any reason. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Should a social media company be treated differently?
- ralusek 5y ago
  Because they're monopolies.
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    >Because they're monopolies McDonalds has more than 10X the revenue of its closest competitor (KFC). Should they be prohibited from kicking out a customer who is causing a nuisance?
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Ironically, because there is more than one entity in social media, they aren't monopolies.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Massive social media platforms are blurring the lines of what public communication means in context of the public square. We need careful consideration on both sides, and it's disingenuous to pretend that they're simply a private business and that we can treat them as if they aren't effectively virtual public squares that dwarf anything in the real world in scale and reach.
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    >it's disingenuous to pretend that they're simply a private business and that we can treat them as if they aren't effectively virtual public squares Recognized public squares (eg the National Mall) are protected by regulation. Is that really what people want for Youtube?
    - 5y ago

BeefWellington 5y ago

It's funny to me because Free Speech is one of those topics on its own that doesn't permit nuance in my experience - either you're for it or you're a dictator/sheep/lapdog/etc. In reality though, laws have been limiting speech for hundreds of years, and those laws and judgements are enforced by the government. The idea that it is sacrosanct and is (and should "continue" to be) unabated is already not what happens. The usual example is about shouting bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded movie theatre but those are more about mischief than any freedom to say a thing (you aren't punished for the words alone). However, Libel and Slander laws exist and have for a long long time and are limits on free speech. I'm not in favor of draconian laws designed to chill debate but it's important to recognize that limits already exist and how we navigate where to draw the line is the key I think.

spamizbad 5y ago
Nobody complained when social media sites shut down ISIL videos or Taliban content. And why would they? Those are bad ideas from bad people! But anti-vaccine content? Why, that could be your neighbor! And your neighbor doesn't deserve to be censored (unlike the evil people who definitely needed to be)
- evv555 5y ago
  That's a very selective interpretation on events. ISIS propaganda spread like wildfire through Twitter. The administration did nothing and the media barely made a peep about the root cause until the horses had already left the barn. None of these "concerned" stakeholders gave a shit about the socially corrosive nature of social media and they still don't beyond their own interests.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though.
    - evv555 5y ago
      >Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. Before they were terrorists they were "insurgents" of the "Arab Spring". Something that the administration and Twitter/SM were more than willing to lean into before they lost control of the situation. >I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though. That's more a function of your age and filter bubble not whether there was ISIS propaganda which is well documented.
      - rchaud 5y ago
        What remains undocumented however is your claim that no action was taken.
        evv555 5y ago
        This is a very strange approach to discourse. What action do you think was taken and where's the documentation? The administration was openly showing support for the Arab Spring mobs and even built up a military coalition in its support. Lack of knowledge on current events isn't the same as taking a skeptical stance.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        I mean, this isn't really true: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1370/close-parts-internet-where-isis/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpomete... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-plans-shake-up-in-propaganda-war-against-the-islamic-state/2016/01/08/d482255c-b585-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used-to-combat-isis-propaganda-is-enlisted-by-democratic-group-to-counter-trumps-coronavirus-messaging/2020/05/01/6bed5f70-8a5b-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07/hillary-clinton-wants-tech-companies-to-help-disrupt-isis-what-does-that-even-mean/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07... ... Social media companies actually had a hugely successful anti-ISIS recruiting and propoganda campaign. This was something that everyone wanted a bit of credit for, but was ultimately totally uncontroversial because terrorists bad and no one complains when companies deplatform them.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >Nobody complained when social media sites shut down ISIL videos or Taliban content. People did. You didn't hear about it because they were brushed aside as free speech extremists and wacko libertarians.
  - LudvigVanHassen 5y ago
    Or they were kids and too young to comment or understand the situation. I would have protested then if I were an adult with my life understanding now.
- ioslipstream 5y ago
  Imagine if they used their powers to shut down something that's actually harmful, like, I don't know, sex trafficking. If they put as much energy into stifling human trafficking as they did dissenting covid opinions, we might make a dent in it.
- throwawayjeje 5y ago
  I didn't cheer. I don't cheer unless the videos are snuff (a beheading) or pornographic (not in ISIS' case). For the later I wouldn't even erase such content from the internet. All I demand is a proper age verification system for viewers and the actors. More guarantees that the actresses aren't, in fact, being abused by their situation would be nice - what can I say, I dare to dream.
  - judahmeek 5y ago
    So you agree that there should be restrictions on speech that negatively impacts public health then. You just disagree on where the line should be drawn.
- mariodiana 5y ago
  Those were essentially recruitment videos for enemies we were literally at war with. If we are literally at war with individuals skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccines, we should say so.
abecedarius 5y ago
> either you're for it or you're a dictator/sheep/lapdog/etc. This is the nature of the things we come to see as rights. Why is an X a 'right' and not just a nice idea? Because of a history of political entrepreneurs pushing, pushing, pushing against it -- it's just a reasonable tradeoff for this case, can't you see? A right is a Schelling fence beyond which the 'reasonable' tradeoffs must face a much stronger presumption against them. Of course the world is complicated. One of the most salient complications is the ubiquity through history of clever people with justifications why they need power over others. When in this context you bring up the indisputable fact that no human question is 100% clear, the effect is to weaken the fence.
xwowsersx 5y ago
This is true, there are no absolute rights. However, the examples you cite have no resemblance to the stifling of careful discussion which might, in some way, question the wisdom of universal vaccination or inquire about the long-term effects, etc. That kind of speech is qualitatively different from incitement to violence and other clear and present danger cases. So I'm not sure how pointing out that in some abstract sense rights are never absolute has any bearing on this discussion. The chilling of speech in the public square that we are currently witnessing has no clear limits and the logic used to justify it ends up making this tantamount to setting up some kind of a wrongspeak standard. In a free society, individuals must be uninhibited in their investigation of the wisdom of public health policy. Equating this to the "yeling fire in a crowded theater" case is silly.
Negitivefrags 5y ago
You could use this exact argument form to argue that there are limits to your “right to life” as well. After all, there are laws that have existed to limit that right for hundreds of years. The death penalty. My point is that just because there have been laws in the past, that changes nothing about if something should be a right or not.
chroem- 5y ago
> In reality though, laws have been limiting speech for hundreds of years, and those laws and judgements are enforced by the government. The idea that it is sacrosanct and is (and should "continue" to be) unabated is already not what happens. The usual example is about shouting bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded movie theatre but those are more about mischief than any freedom to say a thing (you aren't punished for the words alone). However, Libel and Slander laws exist and have for a long long time and are limits on free speech. Why is it that I have never heard these laws cited outside the context of justifying additional restrictions on freedom of speech, and especially restrictions on political speech? Without digging for an example, when is the last time you personally encountered someone who was prosecuted for saying a naughty word in a movie theater or saying mean things about someone online?
- Frondo 5y ago
  Well, a few days ago we had this article on HN... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682582 (Tesla suing people for defamation over social media posts)
raxxorrax 5y ago
Academics have warned that their faculties get more ideological and contrarian views are suppressed, people begin to self-censor. There is certainly a very real threat to freedom of expression, opinion, speech or whatever you want to call it. I think in exchange we should recognize this a well. That is of course also fundamentally contrary to your lapdog characterization.

systemvoltage 5y ago

I’ll be voting for anyone that advocates civil liberties. Another thing that is not talked about enough is how small minority of people in Silicon Valley gets to dictate how the rest of the world sees information. Algorithms and things that Big Tech is doing behind the closed doors to influence the world. It doesn’t matter left or right, what matters is the unbelievable power of say 1000 people in SV that figured out content engagement algorithms at Google, Twitter, FB, Apple News, etc. The most powerful people on earth are those that govern algorithms that preferentially show content to people. In China that’s their Big Tech fused with CCP, in the west it is SV Big Tech shunning anything that’s not woke. FB is an exception but even within FB there is a rout.

andrekandre 5y ago
> small minority of people in Silicon Valley gets to dictate how the rest of the world sees information if you think that minority is confined to silicon valley and "big tech" i think you'll be in for a rude awakening, but in this case youtube removing anti-vax videos when its obvious disinformation is a good thing imo
8note 5y ago
The government has not stepped up to host a social media site that would be bound by the constitution

yibg 5y ago

I’m not sure if this is true. I think there has always been restrictions to free speech, it’s just what’s not allowed has changed over the years. Try having pro Soviet material in the 70s.

evv555 5y ago
I guess it depends on what you mean by "pro Soviet material" but Academia and adjacent fields were full of USSR sympathizers in the 70s. People like Marcuse were/are very influential figures.
- ioslipstream 5y ago
  One could say the current socialist state of academia got it's start in the 70s.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  Marcuse was a communist but not pro-Soviet by most measures. Academia did indeed have quite a few Soviet sympathetic figure. Tbh, I'm not sure why the gp picked the 70's. The cold war was mostly thawing then as the failure of the USSR was becoming visible (though Reagan partly reignited it in 80s). The 1950s was a period where real and suspected sympathizers of the USSR were drummed out of their positions in academia, entertainment and elsewhere. The witch hunts died down in the 1960s as US society relaxed a bit itself.

ahallock 5y ago

We need to start applying free speech to internet platforms as well -- an updated first amendment. Times have changed and these platforms can deny speech, effectively silencing political opposition. The people cheering it on are happy because their political opponents are being silenced. But imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. If you're a coward, you won't speak out against it. You'd rather relish your opponents getting deplatformed.

les_diabolique 5y ago
How does this apply to the rest of the world?
goatlover 5y ago
Anti-vax and ant-mask conspiracy theories aren't legitimate political opposition being deplatformed. They're dangerously false views making a pandemic worse. It doesn't matter who spreads them.

chillly 5y ago

What has 'social media' got to do with free speech? Who is stopping you saying what you want? If what you mean is that what write or say is not beamed on everyone's phone, that is not a free speech issue, it's that you can't persuade anyone to publish what you say, which is totally different.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago

>Society in general has been making chilling moves away from free speech Private companies in the US have always had the right to refuse a customer anytime, for any reason. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Should a social media company be treated differently?

ralusek 5y ago
Because they're monopolies.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  >Because they're monopolies McDonalds has more than 10X the revenue of its closest competitor (KFC). Should they be prohibited from kicking out a customer who is causing a nuisance?
- tomrod 5y ago
  Ironically, because there is more than one entity in social media, they aren't monopolies.
robbedpeter 5y ago
Massive social media platforms are blurring the lines of what public communication means in context of the public square. We need careful consideration on both sides, and it's disingenuous to pretend that they're simply a private business and that we can treat them as if they aren't effectively virtual public squares that dwarf anything in the real world in scale and reach.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  >it's disingenuous to pretend that they're simply a private business and that we can treat them as if they aren't effectively virtual public squares Recognized public squares (eg the National Mall) are protected by regulation. Is that really what people want for Youtube?
  - 5y ago