4 ms·

This author (Jacob Mchangama) is an absolutist with regards to free speech and subscribes fully to the idea that in the marketplace of ideas the truth and corre

by Y-bar 5y ago

This author (Jacob Mchangama) is an absolutist with regards to free speech and subscribes fully to the idea that in the marketplace of ideas the truth and correct result will always come out on top. As an example, just recently he argued in another article titled "The Problem With Banning Russian Disinformation FREE SPEECH HELPS UKRAINE" that preventing state-sponsored propaganda from reaching its target audience is a bad idea. It's a bit unfortunate and almost as if he has never read about the constant barrage of pro-smoking propaganda, or anti-climate change propaganda, or anti-rohingya propaganda in Myanmar ended. Propaganda succeeds because of the resources being poured into it. He also seems to not accept the slow and continued polarization these efforts of propaganda have on society which in turn hurt democracy and therefore threaten free speech even more in the long run. Absolutist free-for-all no-holds-barred free speech could work fine where everyone can speak with their own voice without being drowned in a cacophony of a thousand bot accounts repeating arguments made in bad faith meant to poison the discourse.

at_a_remove 5y ago
Let's do the smoking thing, since you picked that one. 1) We eventually found out the truth. Nobody guarantees that the wins will be fast. 2) You have to be kidding yourself if you think that the suppressed speech wouldn't be that of the people saying "Smoking is dangerous." The tobacco companies can and did hire experts, manufacture the results they wanted, and so forth. They, the establishment, the moneyed, would be deemed "correct" and all else disinformation. Look at these guys in white lab coats! They sure do look smart, meanwhile that other side looks like a bunch of cranks.
- Y-bar 5y ago
  > 1. We eventually found out the truth. Yes. Narrowly. After decades of suffering and deaths, which I personally suffer from today. And we were helped by putting legal limits on the lies presented by bad-faith participants.
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    The alternative is the truth never coming out because the platforms and “fact checkers” are all owned by powerful incumbents with a vested interest in keeping it that way, with individuals silenced under threat of arrest for breaking the narrative.
- simion314 5y ago
  But If say country X had a law like "if you knowingly present fake shit in an ad all in the know will pay with their life" this shit could not happen, we would need to make the people involved in fabricating false stuff pay proportional with the damage. You pay for someone to fake some scientific paper - you pay , you Photoshop some images to mislead people you pay proportional with the damage caused plus some 10% of your wealth, you present yourself with fake identity or credentials you pay... Companies continue to produce this fake ads, fake press releases, fake stats because they are never forced to pay a big fine.
  - at_a_remove 5y ago
    Most of this stuff comes out after all of the principals are retired and/or dead. This is true of government issues as well, take Tuskeegee. Nobody went to jail for that. And you have to consider the "chain of presenting false information." Is Facebook gonna take the hit? "No, we were just doing what we were told. It isn't like we replicate scientific studies ourselves." How about Cindy, who sent the press release about the study to Facebook? Step back, Desmond wrote the press release that Cindy sent, are you going to get him, too? Just trying to legislate this calculus of culpability is going to be filled with loopholes.
    - simion314 5y ago
      I was talking about intention and damages. Say Bob is an idiot, he publishes a video with a flawed experiment where he proves the Earth is flat. There are no damages and Bob really believes Earth is flat so a judge will not find this idiot guilty. Other case, Bill is is greedy bastard, he wants to sell some pills that make penises grow, Bill uses Phtotoshop to make a false medical diploma, Bill also creates fake studies to show his pills contain some magic shit, Bill also has some partners that know this is bullshit (and there is evidence in emails on how they plan to sucker people). IMO this is a clear case where an ad, or FB post, or blog post that uses fake studies, fake credentials, fake documents intentionally to cause others harm is something a judge can act on and no free speech should allow intentional fake advertising/promotion . But say Jimmy is an idiot and he also shared this because he is stupid, he will not be found guilty. Say a political group also uses Photoshop, or fakes documents or uses a third party and asks them to create this fake evidence then they should also pay. So my point is that not FB or YT does the police, but if we have laws and make the guilty pay then there should be less intentional publishing of fake shit. We are still left with idiots that believe false shit and the foreign actorsm paid trolls, maybe you can think on ways to catch this paid foreign trolls. What FB and YT can do is to update theyr algorithm to not amplify this garbage, your free speech right is not giving you the right to be amplified and promoted, you have the right to share to your friends the latest conspiracy but Fb has the right not to push it to others with their shit algorithm.

by Y-bar 5y ago

at_a_remove 5y ago

Let's do the smoking thing, since you picked that one. 1) We eventually found out the truth. Nobody guarantees that the wins will be fast. 2) You have to be kidding yourself if you think that the suppressed speech wouldn't be that of the people saying "Smoking is dangerous." The tobacco companies can and did hire experts, manufacture the results they wanted, and so forth. They, the establishment, the moneyed, would be deemed "correct" and all else disinformation. Look at these guys in white lab coats! They sure do look smart, meanwhile that other side looks like a bunch of cranks.

Y-bar 5y ago
> 1. We eventually found out the truth. Yes. Narrowly. After decades of suffering and deaths, which I personally suffer from today. And we were helped by putting legal limits on the lies presented by bad-faith participants.
- teakettle42 5y ago
  The alternative is the truth never coming out because the platforms and “fact checkers” are all owned by powerful incumbents with a vested interest in keeping it that way, with individuals silenced under threat of arrest for breaking the narrative.
simion314 5y ago
But If say country X had a law like "if you knowingly present fake shit in an ad all in the know will pay with their life" this shit could not happen, we would need to make the people involved in fabricating false stuff pay proportional with the damage. You pay for someone to fake some scientific paper - you pay , you Photoshop some images to mislead people you pay proportional with the damage caused plus some 10% of your wealth, you present yourself with fake identity or credentials you pay... Companies continue to produce this fake ads, fake press releases, fake stats because they are never forced to pay a big fine.
- at_a_remove 5y ago
  Most of this stuff comes out after all of the principals are retired and/or dead. This is true of government issues as well, take Tuskeegee. Nobody went to jail for that. And you have to consider the "chain of presenting false information." Is Facebook gonna take the hit? "No, we were just doing what we were told. It isn't like we replicate scientific studies ourselves." How about Cindy, who sent the press release about the study to Facebook? Step back, Desmond wrote the press release that Cindy sent, are you going to get him, too? Just trying to legislate this calculus of culpability is going to be filled with loopholes.
  - simion314 5y ago
    I was talking about intention and damages. Say Bob is an idiot, he publishes a video with a flawed experiment where he proves the Earth is flat. There are no damages and Bob really believes Earth is flat so a judge will not find this idiot guilty. Other case, Bill is is greedy bastard, he wants to sell some pills that make penises grow, Bill uses Phtotoshop to make a false medical diploma, Bill also creates fake studies to show his pills contain some magic shit, Bill also has some partners that know this is bullshit (and there is evidence in emails on how they plan to sucker people). IMO this is a clear case where an ad, or FB post, or blog post that uses fake studies, fake credentials, fake documents intentionally to cause others harm is something a judge can act on and no free speech should allow intentional fake advertising/promotion . But say Jimmy is an idiot and he also shared this because he is stupid, he will not be found guilty. Say a political group also uses Photoshop, or fakes documents or uses a third party and asks them to create this fake evidence then they should also pay. So my point is that not FB or YT does the police, but if we have laws and make the guilty pay then there should be less intentional publishing of fake shit. We are still left with idiots that believe false shit and the foreign actorsm paid trolls, maybe you can think on ways to catch this paid foreign trolls. What FB and YT can do is to update theyr algorithm to not amplify this garbage, your free speech right is not giving you the right to be amplified and promoted, you have the right to share to your friends the latest conspiracy but Fb has the right not to push it to others with their shit algorithm.