6 ms·

We used to fund distributed disruptive technologies to subvert Soviet censorship. Chinese censorship was seen as proof of our superior freedom 20 years ago. N

We used to fund distributed disruptive technologies to subvert Soviet censorship. Chinese censorship was seen as proof of our superior freedom 20 years ago. Now it is viewed with envy by those in power. What moral high ground do we hold now?

adventured 5y ago
> What moral high ground do we hold now? Vast amounts of ground, fortunately. How about the fact that we can have these conversations fully uncensored? That little thing known as freedom of speech, which is still overwhelmingly alive and well. I enjoy its use, aggressively, on a daily basis without persecution and have for decades uninterrupted.
- formerkrogemp 5y ago
  We can have this conversation now, but vigilance is good.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Certainly. Nothing in my comment suggests otherwise in the least.
    - formerkrogemp 5y ago
      So much on this site and online more generally comes across as criticism. It wasn't meant as such. I just thought it should be minded.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Except that freedom of speech does not protect us from intolerance, as Karl Popper observed. For example, private entities are not required to uphold freedom of speech.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    Funny enough, in Germany - which is definitely more restricted, and for good reason, on the US understanding of "free speech" - Facebook and Twitter are routinely seen as public discourse forums and have to unban users as long as what they post isn't against the law [1]. [1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-urteil-facebook-meinungsfreiheit-1.4707910 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-urteil-faceboo...
  - politician 5y ago
    Good news- We aren’t required to tolerate institutions that don’t uphold freedom of speech.
  - refurb 5y ago
    It's funny when Popper is brought up in this way because his conclusion was that the only reasonable censorship of intolerance was that which poses a threat of immediate physical harm. So basically how the US treats freedom of speech today. He certainly wouldn't be supportive of censoring racist commentary that didn't incite immediate physical violence.
- dangus 5y ago
  The article is about the benefits that the US intelligence agencies get from the censorship power of a centralized monopoly of tech companies. For example, if your main form of communication online is through companies owned by Meta, it’s very easy to effectively censor a point of view or group of people through deplatforming, but if there are dozens of platforms that becomes more difficult. While more authoritarian countries rely on direct censorship, the US instead promotes the viewpoints they want people to subscribe to: positive reinforcement. You can see this with the government’s involvement with the entertainment industry, or with the military paying sports leagues to promote patriotic displays. Tech companies being private entities means that they can censor or at least stop the viral effects of social media on ideas that don’t fit the mold. There’s a lot you can do to shape public opinion without violating the first amendment. It’s kind of similar to the way local news stations will run “stories” that amount to advertisements for various products or local businesses. Or you might see a funny meme on Reddit where the joke mostly has to do with a company. Not to say that there aren’t valid reasons to do stuff like this…there’s plenty of harmful speech out there that makes the world a worse place. Hateful, violent, or misleading speech is a legitimate problem. For example, there’s a report that claims most anti-vaccination online content comes from just 12 sources. [1] It seems a little bit alarming that such a small group can amplify speech in a way that has cost perhaps thousands of lives. [1] [PDF] https://f4d9b9d3-3d32-4f3a-afa6-49f8bf05279a.usrfiles.com/ugd/f4d9b9_df6e2ee56bbd4f53be11a3156dae0b63.pdf https://f4d9b9d3-3d32-4f3a-afa6-49f8bf05279a.usrfiles.com/ug...
incomingpain 5y ago
>We used to fund distributed disruptive technologies to subvert Soviet censorship. Chinese censorship was seen as proof of our superior freedom 20 years ago. Now it is viewed with envy by those in power. What moral high ground do we hold now? The bigger point to discuss. If twitter is under control of the US government. I have no idea if it is or not, it just seems to be the case. You dont get to make the comment 'twitter is private, free speech only applies to government' because twitter == government. The other consideration I had. What if the us government doesnt explicitly own twitter. They simply dont realize the us government has hacked access to moderate and censor things in a clandestine way? Now it's an even more complicated subject but wouldn't justify the stock market situation that brings me to the point.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  >You dont get to make the comment 'twitter is private, free speech only applies to government' because twitter == government. it's true, twitter == government but not twitter === government. Meaning that the conversion happens in the underlying JIT engine where government hacks twitter to do what it wants. So the idea is that you could make a first amendment complaint against the government for hacking twitter if it infringed your free speech with that hack, but you could not say twitter cannot just turn off my account because while twitter == government it does not === government.
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    I get the complication of the position. Occams razor puts me back to the plain option that twitter is simply controlled by us gov.
    - JKCalhoun 5y ago
      Controlled how? I ask because I'm pretty sure real (non-US government) people post to Twitter and get real retweets. How is the US government controlling it? I imagine this would have blown wide open a long time ago if true. (Also Occam's Razor?)

adventured 5y ago

> What moral high ground do we hold now? Vast amounts of ground, fortunately. How about the fact that we can have these conversations fully uncensored? That little thing known as freedom of speech, which is still overwhelmingly alive and well. I enjoy its use, aggressively, on a daily basis without persecution and have for decades uninterrupted.

formerkrogemp 5y ago
We can have this conversation now, but vigilance is good.
- adventured 5y ago
  Certainly. Nothing in my comment suggests otherwise in the least.
  - formerkrogemp 5y ago
    So much on this site and online more generally comes across as criticism. It wasn't meant as such. I just thought it should be minded.
zozbot234 5y ago
Except that freedom of speech does not protect us from intolerance, as Karl Popper observed. For example, private entities are not required to uphold freedom of speech.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  Funny enough, in Germany - which is definitely more restricted, and for good reason, on the US understanding of "free speech" - Facebook and Twitter are routinely seen as public discourse forums and have to unban users as long as what they post isn't against the law [1]. [1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-urteil-facebook-meinungsfreiheit-1.4707910 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-urteil-faceboo...
- politician 5y ago
  Good news- We aren’t required to tolerate institutions that don’t uphold freedom of speech.
- refurb 5y ago
  It's funny when Popper is brought up in this way because his conclusion was that the only reasonable censorship of intolerance was that which poses a threat of immediate physical harm. So basically how the US treats freedom of speech today. He certainly wouldn't be supportive of censoring racist commentary that didn't incite immediate physical violence.
dangus 5y ago
The article is about the benefits that the US intelligence agencies get from the censorship power of a centralized monopoly of tech companies. For example, if your main form of communication online is through companies owned by Meta, it’s very easy to effectively censor a point of view or group of people through deplatforming, but if there are dozens of platforms that becomes more difficult. While more authoritarian countries rely on direct censorship, the US instead promotes the viewpoints they want people to subscribe to: positive reinforcement. You can see this with the government’s involvement with the entertainment industry, or with the military paying sports leagues to promote patriotic displays. Tech companies being private entities means that they can censor or at least stop the viral effects of social media on ideas that don’t fit the mold. There’s a lot you can do to shape public opinion without violating the first amendment. It’s kind of similar to the way local news stations will run “stories” that amount to advertisements for various products or local businesses. Or you might see a funny meme on Reddit where the joke mostly has to do with a company. Not to say that there aren’t valid reasons to do stuff like this…there’s plenty of harmful speech out there that makes the world a worse place. Hateful, violent, or misleading speech is a legitimate problem. For example, there’s a report that claims most anti-vaccination online content comes from just 12 sources. [1] It seems a little bit alarming that such a small group can amplify speech in a way that has cost perhaps thousands of lives. [1] [PDF] https://f4d9b9d3-3d32-4f3a-afa6-49f8bf05279a.usrfiles.com/ugd/f4d9b9_df6e2ee56bbd4f53be11a3156dae0b63.pdf https://f4d9b9d3-3d32-4f3a-afa6-49f8bf05279a.usrfiles.com/ug...

incomingpain 5y ago

>We used to fund distributed disruptive technologies to subvert Soviet censorship. Chinese censorship was seen as proof of our superior freedom 20 years ago. Now it is viewed with envy by those in power. What moral high ground do we hold now? The bigger point to discuss. If twitter is under control of the US government. I have no idea if it is or not, it just seems to be the case. You dont get to make the comment 'twitter is private, free speech only applies to government' because twitter == government. The other consideration I had. What if the us government doesnt explicitly own twitter. They simply dont realize the us government has hacked access to moderate and censor things in a clandestine way? Now it's an even more complicated subject but wouldn't justify the stock market situation that brings me to the point.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>You dont get to make the comment 'twitter is private, free speech only applies to government' because twitter == government. it's true, twitter == government but not twitter === government. Meaning that the conversion happens in the underlying JIT engine where government hacks twitter to do what it wants. So the idea is that you could make a first amendment complaint against the government for hacking twitter if it infringed your free speech with that hack, but you could not say twitter cannot just turn off my account because while twitter == government it does not === government.
- incomingpain 5y ago
  I get the complication of the position. Occams razor puts me back to the plain option that twitter is simply controlled by us gov.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    Controlled how? I ask because I'm pretty sure real (non-US government) people post to Twitter and get real retweets. How is the US government controlling it? I imagine this would have blown wide open a long time ago if true. (Also Occam's Razor?)