3 ms·

There's always a convenient excuse for censorship. Who defines "worse horseshit" today? Tomorrow? Show me the information and I'll find an excuse. A better sta

by aksss 5y ago

There's always a convenient excuse for censorship. Who defines "worse horseshit" today? Tomorrow? Show me the information and I'll find an excuse. A better standard is whether the communication rises to criminal offense or civil matter that caused harm (e.g. voter/election fraud, some sort of willful disregard/negligence). In other words, there's a standard/mechanism for redress already (there's an app for that). If opinion doesn't violate a law or expose someone to a likely successful civil suit, you should be free to express it. Hard for me to imagine scenarios where this doesn't satisfy requirements. If you're concerned about timeliness, keep in mind that censorship doesn't happen quickly enough to stop the election fraud example you gave, unless you are advocating a 'ministry of information' scenario where conversations need to pre-approval to be aired - I would assume you would not advocate for such a thing, in principle.

alkonaut 5y ago
> If opinion doesn't violate a law or expose someone to a likely successful civil suit, you should be free to express Absolutely. I don’t think we are arguing freedom of speech here. > If you're concerned about timeliness, keep in mind that censorship doesn't happen quickly enough to stop the election fraud example you gave Is the fact that it’s futile a good reason to say that obvious fraud should not be removed on sight? > A better standard is whether the communication rises to criminal offense or civil matter that caused harm (e.g. voter/election fraud, some sort of willful disregard/negligence). In other words, there's a standard/mechanism for redress already (there's an app for that). That’s the bar for the law. Obviously the bar for anyone such as a broadcaster can be set at that point or lower. A company has to follow the law obviously but here the question is probably what to employees, prospective employees, customers, investors etc feel. The company adds up the numbers and decides who to include in their platform. Because it’s important to keep in mind that companies promote a select few voices on a platform. They don’t censor away an uncomfortable voice. They chose not to be the megaphone. I’m not sure what the alternative is to the situation we are seeing? Forcing platforms to give everyone a voice? There will always be arbitrary moderation and association in free media. Because it’s part of what free media is. We can’t have a free press without self-censorship.
- aksss 5y ago
  > I don't think we're arguing free speech "Free speech" is being progressively constrained to prevent "offense" and attacked with the murky dog whistle of "misinformation" or disloyalty (most commonly Russian agency), causing a national debate in the process. > should not be removed on sight? I just meant that 'on sight' is often too late to be any more effective than legal action for the Election Day example you gave. The prospective "damage" we risk in most cases that we hear stories about today is highly debatable (next point). > Alternative to the situation we're seeing We would need to agree on the situation "we" are seeing before focusing too much on solutions. I see outsized and misplaced risk intolerance. Indeed, intolerance for open dialogue and skeptical challenge generally if it contrasts with the government/institutional positions. The rapidity with which (ex-CIA now state department) spokesman Ned Price started accusing AP reporter Matt Lee of disloyalty a few days ago is pretty shocking and gross. But that's our reality right now. > We can't have a free press without self-censorship I think I very much disagree with this, but may not be understanding the statement. When you say "self" censorship, does that mean you and I showing restraint (systemically unreliable), or (industry collaboration with) a centralized institution (as in the royal "We") which would not be 'self-censorship' by definition? I think you can have free press without institutional censorship as long as we aren't speaking in complete absolutes and are acknowledging a place for the rule of law. Why? We've been modeling it pretty well for a while, and while everyone imagines the times they are living in are unprecedented, this country has faced far worse crises and managed to hold on to some bedrock principles unique to its model of government (delegated powers and inalienable rights of the people). What's really changed that requires a new call for censorship? I know of a few reporters making the case that we can never compete with China unless we become effectively more 'totalitarian' ourselves. I dismiss the reasoning out of hand entirely. I've heard some other reasons revolving around danger and offense but very wooly and inarticulate definitions/constraints that makes me think risk outweighs reward by a large margin.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    > When you say "self" censorship, does that mean? I mean that a publisher, as a corporate entity will do what it needs to operate as a business and that might mean, for example, choosing to not to do business with people/companies/countries/whatever that might have any form of negative impact on the business but isn't illegal. > I think you can have free press without institutional censorship Not sure what institution you refer to here. > this country Not sure which country you refer to here. Spotify is a Swedish but global company, Rogan is from New Jersey... This story is pretty universal I think. > What's really changed that requires a new call for censorship? I'm not "calling" for censorship. I'm just stating the obvious: that companies and people doing self-censorship isn't something you can be for or against, "call for", protest against, or ban. You can argue that it's unfortunate when the "landscape of acceptable opinions" shrinks. This is a pendulum that will always, and has always, swung both ways (And is very different between different countries of course). > intolerance for open dialogue and skeptical challenge generally if it contrasts with the government/institutional positions Whenever something even gets near authorities and public instutitutions, we are in a whole different area. That's where actual free speech comes into play. The limit set by authorities on what you can and cannot say. The topic at hand here though is only when a privately owned company chooses to not do business with another company or person.

by aksss 5y ago

alkonaut 5y ago

> If opinion doesn't violate a law or expose someone to a likely successful civil suit, you should be free to express Absolutely. I don’t think we are arguing freedom of speech here. > If you're concerned about timeliness, keep in mind that censorship doesn't happen quickly enough to stop the election fraud example you gave Is the fact that it’s futile a good reason to say that obvious fraud should not be removed on sight? > A better standard is whether the communication rises to criminal offense or civil matter that caused harm (e.g. voter/election fraud, some sort of willful disregard/negligence). In other words, there's a standard/mechanism for redress already (there's an app for that). That’s the bar for the law. Obviously the bar for anyone such as a broadcaster can be set at that point or lower. A company has to follow the law obviously but here the question is probably what to employees, prospective employees, customers, investors etc feel. The company adds up the numbers and decides who to include in their platform. Because it’s important to keep in mind that companies promote a select few voices on a platform. They don’t censor away an uncomfortable voice. They chose not to be the megaphone. I’m not sure what the alternative is to the situation we are seeing? Forcing platforms to give everyone a voice? There will always be arbitrary moderation and association in free media. Because it’s part of what free media is. We can’t have a free press without self-censorship.

aksss 5y ago
> I don't think we're arguing free speech "Free speech" is being progressively constrained to prevent "offense" and attacked with the murky dog whistle of "misinformation" or disloyalty (most commonly Russian agency), causing a national debate in the process. > should not be removed on sight? I just meant that 'on sight' is often too late to be any more effective than legal action for the Election Day example you gave. The prospective "damage" we risk in most cases that we hear stories about today is highly debatable (next point). > Alternative to the situation we're seeing We would need to agree on the situation "we" are seeing before focusing too much on solutions. I see outsized and misplaced risk intolerance. Indeed, intolerance for open dialogue and skeptical challenge generally if it contrasts with the government/institutional positions. The rapidity with which (ex-CIA now state department) spokesman Ned Price started accusing AP reporter Matt Lee of disloyalty a few days ago is pretty shocking and gross. But that's our reality right now. > We can't have a free press without self-censorship I think I very much disagree with this, but may not be understanding the statement. When you say "self" censorship, does that mean you and I showing restraint (systemically unreliable), or (industry collaboration with) a centralized institution (as in the royal "We") which would not be 'self-censorship' by definition? I think you can have free press without institutional censorship as long as we aren't speaking in complete absolutes and are acknowledging a place for the rule of law. Why? We've been modeling it pretty well for a while, and while everyone imagines the times they are living in are unprecedented, this country has faced far worse crises and managed to hold on to some bedrock principles unique to its model of government (delegated powers and inalienable rights of the people). What's really changed that requires a new call for censorship? I know of a few reporters making the case that we can never compete with China unless we become effectively more 'totalitarian' ourselves. I dismiss the reasoning out of hand entirely. I've heard some other reasons revolving around danger and offense but very wooly and inarticulate definitions/constraints that makes me think risk outweighs reward by a large margin.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  > When you say "self" censorship, does that mean? I mean that a publisher, as a corporate entity will do what it needs to operate as a business and that might mean, for example, choosing to not to do business with people/companies/countries/whatever that might have any form of negative impact on the business but isn't illegal. > I think you can have free press without institutional censorship Not sure what institution you refer to here. > this country Not sure which country you refer to here. Spotify is a Swedish but global company, Rogan is from New Jersey... This story is pretty universal I think. > What's really changed that requires a new call for censorship? I'm not "calling" for censorship. I'm just stating the obvious: that companies and people doing self-censorship isn't something you can be for or against, "call for", protest against, or ban. You can argue that it's unfortunate when the "landscape of acceptable opinions" shrinks. This is a pendulum that will always, and has always, swung both ways (And is very different between different countries of course). > intolerance for open dialogue and skeptical challenge generally if it contrasts with the government/institutional positions Whenever something even gets near authorities and public instutitutions, we are in a whole different area. That's where actual free speech comes into play. The limit set by authorities on what you can and cannot say. The topic at hand here though is only when a privately owned company chooses to not do business with another company or person.