4 ms·
Those of us who live in the US enjoy free speech, which clearly allows types of speech that are considered misinformation. In order for a platform to censor spe
by diego 5y ago
Those of us who live in the US enjoy free speech, which clearly allows types of speech that are considered misinformation. In order for a platform to censor speech that is otherwise legal, they must either do it out of principle (they simply don't like a certain kind of speech) or as a calculated business decision because it's what their customers want.
It turns out a significant number of people who support free speech also want their favorite platforms to not allow speech they don't like. The argument is "this is not free speech, it's misinformation and it's damaging." If there were valid scientific arguments proving that what we call misinformation is actually damaging, that would be a reasonable position. However, so far I have not seen anything that convinced me.
All I've heard are "just so" arguments akin to "TV/videogames cause violence." What if fake news do not change people's minds as much as it may appear? We tend to listen to viewpoints (fake or not) that confirm our beliefs. All the information confirming our beliefs is out there, cannot be removed from the internet, and we will gravitate towards it. If that is true, then we are paying a high price (asking platforms to police speech beyond the law) for little or no benefit.
Edit: downvoter, I would appreciate if it you could explain how you disagree with my comment.
- malermeister 5y agoFree speech only applies to the government. A private company has every right to not amplify your message if they don't want to.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> A private company has every right to not amplify your message if they don't want to. Specifically, the right of private actors to do or not do this as they please is called “free speech”.
- diego 5y agoOf course. What does that have to do with my comment? Spotify wants to carry Joe Rogan, and they also want to carry Neil Young. Neil Young is the one who wants Spotify to choose.
- pumaontheprowl 5y agoNo, the First Amendment only applies to the government. Free speech is a concept that can be applied anywhere.
- xdennis 5y agoYou're confusing free speech with the American first amendment. Free speech is an universal principle, probably best expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the US signed): > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Notice the part I emphasized.
- prohobo 5y agoI didn't know about this, actually. Nice! I mean that's as clear-cut as it can get, although media might mean format rather than platform, otherwise all moderation is technically a breach of this right: though I suppose if it's in the terms and conditions then all parties must agree to the use of moderation for specific cases.
- uejfiweun 5y agoI agree with what you are saying, but I'd say that it's specifically the progressive side that benefits the most from the censorship, even if it may be bad for society as a whole. Plenty of people out there aren't really actually devoted to free speech, they are moreso dedicated to this new totalitarian ideology, and would be happy to throw free speech out the window if it means nobody can rebut their claims. I'd guess that they think it benefits their political goals more than it hurts society. I'd also guess that they are the same people downvoting your comment.
- alephnan 5y ago> I'd also guess that they are the same people downvoting your comment. I've noticed this trend on HackerNews in recent years of downvoting without providing a substantive criticism. I'm curious if HN has plans to curve the upvote/downvote system against tyranny of the masses because it seems the principal of charity is not being respected much more