3 ms·

> If we decide that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking I think this much is now obvious. Unrestricted free speech, particularly of the kind that's back

by Nursie 5y ago

> If we decide that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking I think this much is now obvious. Unrestricted free speech, particularly of the kind that's backed by a commercial or political agenda, is not leading us to some idealised view of a marketplace of ideas, but a torrent of bullshit where the loudest voices are often heeded regardless of merit. Many people are not seeking to find the best ideas, they are seeking tribal identity and ego reinforcement. > I think we should keep with free speech even if it ruins us. At least we'll have learned something. This seems ... counter intuitive. I wouldn't expect that, should society tear itself apart over such things, any significant proportion of people will learn anything much from it. > If we give up our values, we'll be just another example of a culture losing a game of chicken with itself. Why is "allowing motivated bad actors to destroy our society" one of "our" values? We already have limits on speech (no yelling "Fire" etc etc), I would expect over time, and as new forms of speech arise, that those boundaries shift around. What I find absurd is the absolutist position - if trolls aren't allowed to spew the most vile hatred on all social media with no comeback and no removal, shadowing, anything, we've lost our freedom! All moderation is censorship! None of this is an argument for government censorship, but the ideals of a marketplace of ideas leading to advancement and intellectual progress, all fuelled by free speech, seem (to me) as busted as the idea that evolution necessarily causes advancement - the natural environment doesn't optimise for progress, but procreation. I think it's time to acknowledge that speech is subject to similar forces.

commandlinefan 5y ago
> where the loudest voices are often heeded Such as...? The only people being actively censored these days are conservatives - the least heeded voices in modern western discourse. Censoring communists in the 40's didn't stop their ideas from spreading then, either.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Nursie 5y ago
  The idea that conservative voices in the west are the victims of censorship is hilarious. The idea that they are the least heeded, when they are in fact in power in a lot of places, is equally funny.
anamax 5y ago
> We already have limits on speech (no yelling "Fire" etc etc) Actually, it's falsely yelling "fire" in specific and very limited circumstances. You're actually encouraged to yell "fire" when there actually is one and in most circumstances, you're perfectly free yell fire when there isn't one.
- Nursie 5y ago
  Sure, it's more specific than just yelling "fire". I can stand and yell "fire" in my house or the park all I like :) The point is we already recognise that there are circumstances when expression crosses a line.
  - yew 5y ago
    Probably worth noting that it's a metaphor for why the government can criminalize opposing a wartime draft. (Probably worth noting why they can't.)
    - Nursie 5y ago
      Interesting bit of background there, thanks. I do believe in the free exchange of ideas, the right to oppose government etc. All the usual concerns about who watches the watchers, abuse of power if granted censorship rights etc etc etc, are perfectly valid. But the notion that free speech necessarily promotes positive progression in an honest marketplace of ideas, or the discovery of 'truth', seems naive and really quite outdated.
      - yew 5y ago
        I make no objection.
      - anamax 5y ago
        > But the notion that free speech necessarily promotes positive progression in an honest marketplace of ideas, or the discovery of 'truth', seems naive and really quite outdated. Remind me - how often have censors turned out to be the good guys? How often have censors "[promoted] an honest marketplace of ideas or the discovery of 'truth'"? We have experience with censorship. Free speech may not be perfect but the alternatives have been worse. Why will this time be different?
slibhb 5y ago
To you, it's obvious that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking. Well, most of the arguments for free speech from Socrates to Mill are based on the idea that it does. You say that government censorship is bad but I wonder why. Why is the first amendment a good thing? I gave two possible reasons: people have a natural right to say what they think, consequences be damned or free speech is necessary for truth-seeking. You rejected the latter. What concerns me is not social media moderation (though I'm generally against it) but that people like you, who have rejected the standard arguments for free speech, actually have no rationale for supporting free speech at all.
- Nursie 5y ago
  You have two points confused - > To you, it's obvious that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking. > free speech is necessary for truth-seeking These are not in conflict. It is necessary that football-kicking be legal for football (soccer) to take place. However, football-kicking being legal does not necessarily lead to soccer, and may in fact lead to all sorts of other ball-kicking related activities. Yes, freedom of speech is indeed necessary for the free exchange of ideas, and for the concept of a marketplace of ideas as envisaged by such philosophers to exist. That doesn't mean that the marketplace of ideas that they envisage actually exists or functions as they would imagine. Specifically we see the public commons becomes dominated by commercial and politically driven messaging, often both made and propagated in bad faith. The idea of a functional marketplace of ideas, of "truth-seeking" as you put it, requires honest actors for whom this truth-seeking is a goal. That turns out to be fine in the context of academia, but wider public discourse doesn't operate that way. > What concerns me is not social media moderation (though I'm generally against it) but that people like you, who have rejected the standard arguments for free speech, actually have no rationale for supporting free speech at all. Of course it concerns you, because for you free speech is a point of religious faith. You've already said you'd rather see society fail than compromise on it. It looks like you'd rather have that than even examine what it is you mean by free speech and why that's worth protecting. Because I absolutely believe the principles of freedom of expression are worth protecting. I just disagree that trolls and shitposters getting banned from twitter is the slightest bit relevant, or that all we can do in the face of campaigns of lies and disinformation is to throw our hands up and say "Oh well, free speech", while attempting to argue with people who are not the least bit interested in truth-seeking or arguing in good faith. The irony of course, is we're having this discussion on a heavily moderated social media site...

by Nursie 5y ago

commandlinefan 5y ago

> where the loudest voices are often heeded Such as...? The only people being actively censored these days are conservatives - the least heeded voices in modern western discourse. Censoring communists in the 40's didn't stop their ideas from spreading then, either.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Nursie 5y ago
The idea that conservative voices in the west are the victims of censorship is hilarious. The idea that they are the least heeded, when they are in fact in power in a lot of places, is equally funny.

anamax 5y ago

> We already have limits on speech (no yelling "Fire" etc etc) Actually, it's falsely yelling "fire" in specific and very limited circumstances. You're actually encouraged to yell "fire" when there actually is one and in most circumstances, you're perfectly free yell fire when there isn't one.

Nursie 5y ago
Sure, it's more specific than just yelling "fire". I can stand and yell "fire" in my house or the park all I like :) The point is we already recognise that there are circumstances when expression crosses a line.
- yew 5y ago
  Probably worth noting that it's a metaphor for why the government can criminalize opposing a wartime draft. (Probably worth noting why they can't.)
  - Nursie 5y ago
    Interesting bit of background there, thanks. I do believe in the free exchange of ideas, the right to oppose government etc. All the usual concerns about who watches the watchers, abuse of power if granted censorship rights etc etc etc, are perfectly valid. But the notion that free speech necessarily promotes positive progression in an honest marketplace of ideas, or the discovery of 'truth', seems naive and really quite outdated.
    - yew 5y ago
      I make no objection.
    - anamax 5y ago
      > But the notion that free speech necessarily promotes positive progression in an honest marketplace of ideas, or the discovery of 'truth', seems naive and really quite outdated. Remind me - how often have censors turned out to be the good guys? How often have censors "[promoted] an honest marketplace of ideas or the discovery of 'truth'"? We have experience with censorship. Free speech may not be perfect but the alternatives have been worse. Why will this time be different?

slibhb 5y ago

To you, it's obvious that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking. Well, most of the arguments for free speech from Socrates to Mill are based on the idea that it does. You say that government censorship is bad but I wonder why. Why is the first amendment a good thing? I gave two possible reasons: people have a natural right to say what they think, consequences be damned or free speech is necessary for truth-seeking. You rejected the latter. What concerns me is not social media moderation (though I'm generally against it) but that people like you, who have rejected the standard arguments for free speech, actually have no rationale for supporting free speech at all.

Nursie 5y ago
You have two points confused - > To you, it's obvious that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking. > free speech is necessary for truth-seeking These are not in conflict. It is necessary that football-kicking be legal for football (soccer) to take place. However, football-kicking being legal does not necessarily lead to soccer, and may in fact lead to all sorts of other ball-kicking related activities. Yes, freedom of speech is indeed necessary for the free exchange of ideas, and for the concept of a marketplace of ideas as envisaged by such philosophers to exist. That doesn't mean that the marketplace of ideas that they envisage actually exists or functions as they would imagine. Specifically we see the public commons becomes dominated by commercial and politically driven messaging, often both made and propagated in bad faith. The idea of a functional marketplace of ideas, of "truth-seeking" as you put it, requires honest actors for whom this truth-seeking is a goal. That turns out to be fine in the context of academia, but wider public discourse doesn't operate that way. > What concerns me is not social media moderation (though I'm generally against it) but that people like you, who have rejected the standard arguments for free speech, actually have no rationale for supporting free speech at all. Of course it concerns you, because for you free speech is a point of religious faith. You've already said you'd rather see society fail than compromise on it. It looks like you'd rather have that than even examine what it is you mean by free speech and why that's worth protecting. Because I absolutely believe the principles of freedom of expression are worth protecting. I just disagree that trolls and shitposters getting banned from twitter is the slightest bit relevant, or that all we can do in the face of campaigns of lies and disinformation is to throw our hands up and say "Oh well, free speech", while attempting to argue with people who are not the least bit interested in truth-seeking or arguing in good faith. The irony of course, is we're having this discussion on a heavily moderated social media site...