3 ms·

Active amplification of disinformation is just as much a threat to democracy. Sure yellow journalism existed. But it had anything resembling the scale, scope,

by toss1 5y ago

Active amplification of disinformation is just as much a threat to democracy. Sure yellow journalism existed. But it had anything resembling the scale, scope, reach, and speed as current technology (which is why it is taking over). Trying to trivialize this new reach would be like trivializing using everyone's iPhone/Android GPS to hand out speeding tickets - sure it's the same law, but an entirely different regime when you can get a new ticket every minute. Despite free speech laws, it has always, and under pretty much every legal system, still been illegal to utter certain types of speech, such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or inciting riot. It is never absolutely free. If all you do when any hint of managing dezinformatsyia arises is cry "everything must be free (as in speech) and anything resembling censorship is horrible", you are being too simplistic. (and leading with it's "so complicated" and moving to censorship alarms is no less simplistic. People and companies need to be responsible for the consequences of what they spread. Wildly amplifying disinformation based on engagement, without anything resembling a moral compass is not sustainable.

anjbe 5y ago
> Despite free speech laws, it has always, and under pretty much every legal system, still been illegal to utter certain types of speech, such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or inciting riot. It is never absolutely free. And that sentiment—that very example, even—has been used to justify expansive restrictions on speech that nobody would or should put up with today, such as opposing the military draft. “When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. United States
- toss1 5y ago
  Of course that sentiment (against yelling "FIRE!") has been misused, just as with any sentiment. Similarly, the "No Censorship Ever!" sentiment is being abused to justify spreading weaponized dezinformatsiya at massive scale and speed, resulting in literally killing people (starting w/deluded COVID victims and Rohinga muslims,+++), for profit. That is THE POINT here - that it can not be absolute in either direction, and we, as a society, must do the work of striking the right balance. And no, it is not an argument that "there was also bad stuff before" (e.g., yellow journalism), so it must be OK now.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > Of course that sentiment (against yelling "FIRE!") has been misused, just as with any sentiment. Except in this case, the origin of that phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a US Supreme Court Case in 1919 that upheld the prosecution of of an anti-war protestor for pamphleting against the draft. This is the approach to free speech that is being referenced when people use this phrase in argument. > Similarly, the "No Censorship Ever!" sentiment is being abused to justify spreading weaponized dezinformatsiya at massive scale and speed, resulting in literally killing people (starting w/deluded COVID victims and Rohinga muslims,+++), for profit. For someone arguing against absolutism, you see to think in very absolutist terms about supporters of free speech. Very few advocates of free speech advocate for no restrictions on speech. Censorship should not be the first tool you reach to do deal with misinformation. Algorithmic censorship carries huge risks and can cause great damage, much like algorithmic amplification. Censoring alleged misinformation and propaganda is a common and widely used tactic of authoritarian governments around the world. Normalizing that censorship makes it easier for am authoritarian leaning administration to push us in that direction. It is extremely dangerous.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Sure yellow journalism existed. But it had anything resembling the scale, scope, reach, and speed as current technology As a share of current events information, it was greater, often virtually monopolistic, for not just “yellow journalism” generally but often a fairly unified single viewpoint of yellow journalism. (In terms of divisiveness, the actual problem today isn't greater proportional influence of yellow journalism, but that there are alternatives, both opposing equally yellow journalism and less-yellow journalism, with widespread reach.) > has always, and under pretty much every legal system, still been illegal to utter certain types of speech, such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, Except, you know, that despite that dicta in a case that has since been overturned (which also is widely now recognized as a travesty restricting core political speech), that was, not illegal and that it was outside the scope of protection was not justifiable based on the case law either at the time or at any point since.
- toss1 5y ago
  I don't see how arguing that how bad yellow journalism was in the past is an argument for continuing it now. Seems a bit like saying 'slavery was bad before, so discrimination is ok now'. Both are unacceptable in sustainable society. Perhaps a particular case was overturned, but the principle still rings true. Or, are you saying that it should really be OK for people to deliberately make verbal actions that directly result in killing other people?
  - anjbe 5y ago
    The point of bringing up Schenck is that reasonable ideas can be and have been used to justify great wrongs, and thus that we shouldn’t rush into action whenever we see a problem, even if there’s a principle that rings true. “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.” What killed the yellow journalism of the past? Was it added restrictions on speech? Or was it something else that we could consider before taking the drastic step of reducing freedom of speech?
    - toss1 5y ago
      >>something else that we could consider before taking the drastic step of reducing freedom of speech? We could consider editorial responsibility - responsibility for what you amplify. The Fairness doctrine did a not bad job while it lasted. Edit: I also notice everyone arguing about Shenk, and no one brings up that some speech is still illegal, e.g., incitement to riot, sedition, and a few others. The point of the example was that nothing is absolute, or should be absolute, even freedom of speech.

by toss1 5y ago

anjbe 5y ago

> Despite free speech laws, it has always, and under pretty much every legal system, still been illegal to utter certain types of speech, such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or inciting riot. It is never absolutely free. And that sentiment—that very example, even—has been used to justify expansive restrictions on speech that nobody would or should put up with today, such as opposing the military draft. “When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. United States

toss1 5y ago
Of course that sentiment (against yelling "FIRE!") has been misused, just as with any sentiment. Similarly, the "No Censorship Ever!" sentiment is being abused to justify spreading weaponized dezinformatsiya at massive scale and speed, resulting in literally killing people (starting w/deluded COVID victims and Rohinga muslims,+++), for profit. That is THE POINT here - that it can not be absolute in either direction, and we, as a society, must do the work of striking the right balance. And no, it is not an argument that "there was also bad stuff before" (e.g., yellow journalism), so it must be OK now.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > Of course that sentiment (against yelling "FIRE!") has been misused, just as with any sentiment. Except in this case, the origin of that phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a US Supreme Court Case in 1919 that upheld the prosecution of of an anti-war protestor for pamphleting against the draft. This is the approach to free speech that is being referenced when people use this phrase in argument. > Similarly, the "No Censorship Ever!" sentiment is being abused to justify spreading weaponized dezinformatsiya at massive scale and speed, resulting in literally killing people (starting w/deluded COVID victims and Rohinga muslims,+++), for profit. For someone arguing against absolutism, you see to think in very absolutist terms about supporters of free speech. Very few advocates of free speech advocate for no restrictions on speech. Censorship should not be the first tool you reach to do deal with misinformation. Algorithmic censorship carries huge risks and can cause great damage, much like algorithmic amplification. Censoring alleged misinformation and propaganda is a common and widely used tactic of authoritarian governments around the world. Normalizing that censorship makes it easier for am authoritarian leaning administration to push us in that direction. It is extremely dangerous.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Sure yellow journalism existed. But it had anything resembling the scale, scope, reach, and speed as current technology As a share of current events information, it was greater, often virtually monopolistic, for not just “yellow journalism” generally but often a fairly unified single viewpoint of yellow journalism. (In terms of divisiveness, the actual problem today isn't greater proportional influence of yellow journalism, but that there are alternatives, both opposing equally yellow journalism and less-yellow journalism, with widespread reach.) > has always, and under pretty much every legal system, still been illegal to utter certain types of speech, such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, Except, you know, that despite that dicta in a case that has since been overturned (which also is widely now recognized as a travesty restricting core political speech), that was, not illegal and that it was outside the scope of protection was not justifiable based on the case law either at the time or at any point since.

toss1 5y ago
I don't see how arguing that how bad yellow journalism was in the past is an argument for continuing it now. Seems a bit like saying 'slavery was bad before, so discrimination is ok now'. Both are unacceptable in sustainable society. Perhaps a particular case was overturned, but the principle still rings true. Or, are you saying that it should really be OK for people to deliberately make verbal actions that directly result in killing other people?
- anjbe 5y ago
  The point of bringing up Schenck is that reasonable ideas can be and have been used to justify great wrongs, and thus that we shouldn’t rush into action whenever we see a problem, even if there’s a principle that rings true. “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.” What killed the yellow journalism of the past? Was it added restrictions on speech? Or was it something else that we could consider before taking the drastic step of reducing freedom of speech?
  - toss1 5y ago
    >>something else that we could consider before taking the drastic step of reducing freedom of speech? We could consider editorial responsibility - responsibility for what you amplify. The Fairness doctrine did a not bad job while it lasted. Edit: I also notice everyone arguing about Shenk, and no one brings up that some speech is still illegal, e.g., incitement to riot, sedition, and a few others. The point of the example was that nothing is absolute, or should be absolute, even freedom of speech.