5 ms·

I hear the Paradox of Tolerance whipped out in discussions of how best to curb free speech before it harms others. I'm always genuinely curious about this, sinc

I hear the Paradox of Tolerance whipped out in discussions of how best to curb free speech before it harms others. I'm always genuinely curious about this, since it seems to me that this curb is already really well-defined: free speech does not imply free action inspired by that speech. We already have laws against speech which causes imminent and material harm (e.g. libel laws, incitement of violence), and beyond that it seems like the Paradox of Tolerance doesn't actually apply here: nobody is advocating that we should tolerate the whole slippery slope of action, most advocates (myself included) carve out tolerance explicitly for speech alone.

spion 4y ago
Speech inspires action. There is a lot of legally allowed action that can still cause plenty of harm, and speech can stimulate that action. I don't have a solution, but we can't pretend that speech isn't much more powerful in today's society - if it were the profession "social media influencer" would not exist. IMO we have systems today (social networks) that make previously unspreadable speech pathological by creating a brain-virus-spreading environment (which is why things go viral, literally). Furthermore the environment favors evolution towards short, poorly thought out, poorly reviewed, "engaging" (and enraging) yellow-press like content.
- spion 4y ago
  Here is an example on what speech on social media did over the past couple of years: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html and this is unfortunately not an isolated case.
- nradov 4y ago
  Inspiration isn't the same as causality. What specific harm are you referring to? Speech isn't more powerful today than before. Speech by printed pamphlets was a key factor in violent American revolution. And there's no such thing as a brain virus. Now you're just making things up.
  - spion 4y ago
    Social media is an environment for spreading brain viruses. Here is how it works (with Twitter as an example, even without an algorithmic timeline): A person tweets something. They have N followers A subset of those followers may see the tweet (the equivalent to getting close to an infected person), and a further subset of those will click retweet (the equivalent to getting infected) The proces then repeats with their follower's followers and so on (exponentially) As such, Twitter is an environment where various ideas and their mutations are generated in a similar manner to viral organisms, and the "fittest" ones survive and spread exponentially. You could probably even calculate the R0 of a tweet (i.e. average number of retweets, quote tweets etc caused by a previous tweet) All of this in turn means that the fitness function of the environment is incredibly important. Now, would you say Twitter as an environment encourages carefully checking information with other sources or for contradictions before clicking retweet? Or does it favor tweets that provoke a quick emotional reaction and a retweet within a couple of seconds of reading them? Note: for specific harm, I posted an example of what social media can do to people (link is on threadreader https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html). I realize its long, but its really hard to explain the problem without seeing the effect in its entirety, especially given how we all (me included) hold free speech in high regard. (Yes I still do, but I now also understand how easily it can be abused to cause immeasurable harm in our new social media environments, and I think we must be at least aware of this)
    - nradov 4y ago
      Nah, you're just making things up and haven't provided any valid evidence to justify restrictions on free speech. Stupid people have always believed stupid things since long before social media. Remember the days of forwarded hoax email chains? Words are not harmful, unless they're a specific and credible threat or incitement to violence. People claiming otherwise are defining down "harm" to such an extent as to make the term meaningless.
      - spion 4y ago
        I'm not even suggesting restrictions to free speech. All I am suggesting is that speech can be incredibly harmful in ways we haven't realized yet. I posted the evidence, I can post a paper too if you like https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559 More discussion about vulnerability to cognitive biases, speech that abuses and exploits them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzzjbSkrLCQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzzjbSkrLCQ and how social media design supports and reinforces this kind of speech over others. To see what I mean by harm, read the threadreader link. My best idea so far is similar to the solution we had for yellow press and tabloids. We learned to recognize and be aware of manipulative kinds of journalism. If we are all careful, more aware and more skeptical - especially on social media - there will be less opportunity to be duped.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  I really think it's true that speech isn't much more powerful in today's society. We just don't remember how powerful it was in the past, because the problems caused by free speech are precisely the kinds of problems that the grand narrative of history tends to smooth out. We talk about pathological Internet speech causing political violence, for example - but do you know about the years-long bombing campaign by the Weather Underground in the 70s, or the time in 1954 when five congresspeople were shot on the floor of the House?
  - spion 4y ago
    It is more powerful because it reaches more people - and furthermore it has exponential amplifiers (social networks) that encourage the most pathological kinds of it. Read this thread, and then multiply this approximate scenario by a million: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html
    - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
      Pathological medical misinformation causing widespread damage certainly isn't a new phenomenon. Do you know about the lobotomy trend, where 40,000 Americans had their brains sliced apart for no good reason? (Have you seen the news clippings of deniers and snake oil ads for the Spanish Flu?)
      - spion 4y ago
        Precisely, and this is genuinely scary. At the time, there was no sophisticated evolutionary environment that spreads "information" at lightning speed with a fitness function tuned for "engagement" and bad ideas still found ways to spread. Nowadays a random tweet can (sometimes accidentally) mobilize a mob with pitchforks.
        SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
        What I'm trying to say is that there was such an evolutionary environment. The 60s were full of deadly riots mobilized by some minor rumor - the Watts riot, for example, killed dozens of people in response to rumors of police misconduct in a drunk driving arrest. We just don't normally think about it this way, because when we look back at history the Watts riot is always interpreted as a facet of "race relations in the US, 1960-1970" rather than a standalone event.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  > Speech inspires action. Welcome to the PreCrime enforcement era.
  - spion 4y ago
    Its the same problem as the yellow press, and we'll probably arrive the same solution (people learning to completely ignore random bullshit they read on social media)
- gameman144 4y ago
  > I don't have a solution, but we can't pretend that speech isn't much more powerful in today's society I am not actually convinced of this: speech is a lot more spreadable today, but there is also a lot more of it from a lot more angles. Just as a greater supply of currency drives price inflation, a greater supply of opinions drives speech inflation: your opinion can spread across the world in seconds, but people give far less of a damn than they used to. > Furthermore the environment favors evolution towards short, poorly thought out, poorly reviewed, "engaging" (and enraging) yellow-press like content. I can think of no period in history where this wasn't the case. Bread and circuses have been the go-to of those in power since the dawn of history.

spion 4y ago

Speech inspires action. There is a lot of legally allowed action that can still cause plenty of harm, and speech can stimulate that action. I don't have a solution, but we can't pretend that speech isn't much more powerful in today's society - if it were the profession "social media influencer" would not exist. IMO we have systems today (social networks) that make previously unspreadable speech pathological by creating a brain-virus-spreading environment (which is why things go viral, literally). Furthermore the environment favors evolution towards short, poorly thought out, poorly reviewed, "engaging" (and enraging) yellow-press like content.

spion 4y ago
Here is an example on what speech on social media did over the past couple of years: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html and this is unfortunately not an isolated case.
nradov 4y ago
Inspiration isn't the same as causality. What specific harm are you referring to? Speech isn't more powerful today than before. Speech by printed pamphlets was a key factor in violent American revolution. And there's no such thing as a brain virus. Now you're just making things up.
- spion 4y ago
  Social media is an environment for spreading brain viruses. Here is how it works (with Twitter as an example, even without an algorithmic timeline): A person tweets something. They have N followers A subset of those followers may see the tweet (the equivalent to getting close to an infected person), and a further subset of those will click retweet (the equivalent to getting infected) The proces then repeats with their follower's followers and so on (exponentially) As such, Twitter is an environment where various ideas and their mutations are generated in a similar manner to viral organisms, and the "fittest" ones survive and spread exponentially. You could probably even calculate the R0 of a tweet (i.e. average number of retweets, quote tweets etc caused by a previous tweet) All of this in turn means that the fitness function of the environment is incredibly important. Now, would you say Twitter as an environment encourages carefully checking information with other sources or for contradictions before clicking retweet? Or does it favor tweets that provoke a quick emotional reaction and a retweet within a couple of seconds of reading them? Note: for specific harm, I posted an example of what social media can do to people (link is on threadreader https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html). I realize its long, but its really hard to explain the problem without seeing the effect in its entirety, especially given how we all (me included) hold free speech in high regard. (Yes I still do, but I now also understand how easily it can be abused to cause immeasurable harm in our new social media environments, and I think we must be at least aware of this)
  - nradov 4y ago
    Nah, you're just making things up and haven't provided any valid evidence to justify restrictions on free speech. Stupid people have always believed stupid things since long before social media. Remember the days of forwarded hoax email chains? Words are not harmful, unless they're a specific and credible threat or incitement to violence. People claiming otherwise are defining down "harm" to such an extent as to make the term meaningless.
    - spion 4y ago
      I'm not even suggesting restrictions to free speech. All I am suggesting is that speech can be incredibly harmful in ways we haven't realized yet. I posted the evidence, I can post a paper too if you like https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559 More discussion about vulnerability to cognitive biases, speech that abuses and exploits them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzzjbSkrLCQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzzjbSkrLCQ and how social media design supports and reinforces this kind of speech over others. To see what I mean by harm, read the threadreader link. My best idea so far is similar to the solution we had for yellow press and tabloids. We learned to recognize and be aware of manipulative kinds of journalism. If we are all careful, more aware and more skeptical - especially on social media - there will be less opportunity to be duped.
SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
I really think it's true that speech isn't much more powerful in today's society. We just don't remember how powerful it was in the past, because the problems caused by free speech are precisely the kinds of problems that the grand narrative of history tends to smooth out. We talk about pathological Internet speech causing political violence, for example - but do you know about the years-long bombing campaign by the Weather Underground in the 70s, or the time in 1954 when five congresspeople were shot on the floor of the House?
- spion 4y ago
  It is more powerful because it reaches more people - and furthermore it has exponential amplifiers (social networks) that encourage the most pathological kinds of it. Read this thread, and then multiply this approximate scenario by a million: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458881015917678594.html
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    Pathological medical misinformation causing widespread damage certainly isn't a new phenomenon. Do you know about the lobotomy trend, where 40,000 Americans had their brains sliced apart for no good reason? (Have you seen the news clippings of deniers and snake oil ads for the Spanish Flu?)
    - spion 4y ago
      Precisely, and this is genuinely scary. At the time, there was no sophisticated evolutionary environment that spreads "information" at lightning speed with a fitness function tuned for "engagement" and bad ideas still found ways to spread. Nowadays a random tweet can (sometimes accidentally) mobilize a mob with pitchforks.
      - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
        What I'm trying to say is that there was such an evolutionary environment. The 60s were full of deadly riots mobilized by some minor rumor - the Watts riot, for example, killed dozens of people in response to rumors of police misconduct in a drunk driving arrest. We just don't normally think about it this way, because when we look back at history the Watts riot is always interpreted as a facet of "race relations in the US, 1960-1970" rather than a standalone event.
jimbokun 4y ago
> Speech inspires action. Welcome to the PreCrime enforcement era.
- spion 4y ago
  Its the same problem as the yellow press, and we'll probably arrive the same solution (people learning to completely ignore random bullshit they read on social media)
gameman144 4y ago
> I don't have a solution, but we can't pretend that speech isn't much more powerful in today's society I am not actually convinced of this: speech is a lot more spreadable today, but there is also a lot more of it from a lot more angles. Just as a greater supply of currency drives price inflation, a greater supply of opinions drives speech inflation: your opinion can spread across the world in seconds, but people give far less of a damn than they used to. > Furthermore the environment favors evolution towards short, poorly thought out, poorly reviewed, "engaging" (and enraging) yellow-press like content. I can think of no period in history where this wasn't the case. Bread and circuses have been the go-to of those in power since the dawn of history.