13 ms·

The thing I'm starting to get increasingly scared about is what these US companies will do with the data that's already there. A significant proportion of our s

The thing I'm starting to get increasingly scared about is what these US companies will do with the data that's already there. A significant proportion of our society has become totally OK with censorship, cancellation, and ostracizing of those who they politically disagree with. One could easily imagine a situation where this intensifies and suddenly political ideologues are analyzing all the voice recordings Alexa ever made in order to out political enemies. Keeping all this data around, in my view, means it will inevitably get misused over a long time scale.

fortuna86 4y ago
What does any of that have to do with this story about Huawei and China?
- throwaway23597 4y ago
  I was responding to the parent comment? > What worries me is that the US itself will go in the same direction. The surveillance is already there, but it is not acted on for the most part in everyday life. But there may be a clock on how long that will last.
  - fortuna86 4y ago
    Unless laws are changes, the US Government cannot demand anything from private industry.
TylerE 4y ago
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech when the majority of the public thinks you’re a raging asshole.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Freedom of speech in private should mean free from consequences.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    A public street or a tv interview isn't in privste.
  - matai_kolila 4y ago
    Depends on how private. Speech is communication, which almost always necessitates more than one person, and the other people are perfectly within their own rights to provide some consequences to the speech they hear in private.
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      I disagree, because this mindset leads to what happened under Mao where anything against the party was punishable and family members would turn you in.
      - matai_kolila 4y ago
        What? No. That's the government acting in response to speech, not other people expressing themselves. Your argument forgets that it's also free speech to react to something objectionable. If the government forced me to do business with you without my consent, that would be compelled association, which is more similar to how Mao's government behaved in the 50s.
  - mynameisbob 4y ago
    Umm no. Unless you’re in a looked soundproof room talking to yourself speech is a social activity and no one gets to dictate how others interpret and react to your speech.
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      Note that this mindset leads to what happened under Mao with children ratting out parents etc.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    Should it? If I say something to someone in private that causes them to think I'm a raging asshole, should they not be free to share it with others, and should that not have consequences for me?
- throwaway23597 4y ago
  See, you scare me. Should private speech in the home have consequences? Speech that not only did you not mean to make public, but you didn't even realize could possibly become public? That's the road to hell for our society.
  - matai_kolila 4y ago
    What even is a “private speech”? Are you worried Alexa is listening to you as you rant to yourself?
    - olyjohn 4y ago
      It's not a private speech, smartass. It's private speech. As in speech that is private. As in, when you're in the privacy of your own home, and you're expressing yourself to yourself or others, that would be private speech. Speech that is not directed to a public audience. Even when you talk to yourself in your mind, that is your own private speech.
      - matai_kolila 4y ago
        Nope, once you involve others, you involve consequences, as it is now their free speech (and free association) that often generates those consequences.
    - throwaway23597 4y ago
      > Are you worried Alexa is listening to you as you rant to yourself? Well, I mean, quite literally, it is. It's always listening to you, and that's how it knows when you say "Alexa". And IIUC all these audio recordings are sent right to AWS and stored indefinitely.
      - greesil 4y ago
        "Alexa, would you like to hear my racist tirade?
- canadiantim 4y ago
  I always found the people who say “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences” are the authoritarian assholes, but that may just be me.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    I'm just tired of bullies claiming to be victims. It's such bullshit.
    - canadiantim 4y ago
      Same
  - chasil 4y ago
    A current standard for free speech within the United States is the legal standard of "imminent lawless action." This replaced the previous standard of "clear and present danger." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    And just try saying it about all sorts of other freedoms and see how chilling it sounds: "freedom of the press is not freedom from consequences."
    - mmcgaha 4y ago
      Damn I think you just changed my opinion.
    - rnk 4y ago
      Explain what about that is chilling. If I make false and defamatory statements in a newspaper (person xyz is a criminal who stole money, committed crimes against children, whatever), if it is not true you can be sued. Is that wrong, you have hurt their public character? But it's nontrivial to get a conviction, there seems to be a reasonable balance. If you say "Elon Musk person is a horrible leader, scares me, makes bad choices, kills baby bunny rabbits for fun" he likely won't win a suit - but it would be costly to defend yourself.
- janalsncm 4y ago
  Doesn’t this beg the question of what exactly “consequences” means? Most people would agree free speech doesn’t mean a local restaurant has to serve you. But what about other businesses? Can dentists refuse to treat you? Can hospitals refuse to give you life saving treatments based on your political views? Many hospitals in the US are private businesses. Most people agree that social networks can kick you out. But what about ISPs? Can they refuse your business? And if ISPs can refuse your business, what about water or electricity companies? Certainly freedom of speech means freedom from certain consequences. As codified in the First Amendment it means freedom from certain legal consequences. Of course freedom of speech is broader than 1A though.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Can dentists refuse to treat you? Yes. > Can hospitals refuse to give you life saving treatments based on your political views? Ask a Catholic hospital to do an abortion. > And if ISPs can refuse your business, what about water or electricity companies? We have specific law for these sorts of scenarios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility
    - janalsncm 4y ago
      I wouldn’t consider Catholic hospitals abortions to be the same situation. They don’t give abortions to anyone. That’s not the same as refusing a particular patient because they don’t like things that patient has said in the past.
      - 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
        But there have been CVS/Walgreens pharmacists who refuse to offer birth control or the morning after pill.
        janalsncm 4y ago
        Still, that’s not refusing service to a particular customer based on that customer’s speech. I believe that pharmacist would refuse any customer. My question is about a pharmacy which would refuse e.g. Alex Jones because of things he’s said in the past.
- rhino369 4y ago
  Depends on what you mean by consequences. If the consequence is people thinking you are a raging asshole sure. If it's people strongly disagreeing with you, sure. But if consequences means there is a coordinated effort among major corporations to punish and prevent you from speaking by de-platforming you or anyone who gives you a platform--that isn't freedom of speech (regardless of whether its allowed under the 1st amendment or not). US social media banned covid misinformation as defined by US health officials. Why is banning covid misinformation as defined by Chinese health officials any different? Shit, the Chinese policy isn't even that different than the US's view 18 months ago--US lockdown protestors were vilified.
- astrange 4y ago
  Freedom of speech has to mean freedom from consequences; consequences are the only thing you can be free from. There might be some difference between “consequences to the message” and “consequences to the speaker” but I’ve never seen anyone try to tell those apart.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    Then right to free speech only protects you from government consequences.
    - astrange 4y ago
      Yes, I think that's the right way to put it. The xkcd comic people link doesn't say that though…
slg 4y ago
>A significant proportion of our society has become totally OK with censorship, cancellation This specific phrasing jumped out to me because being against both censorship and cancellation should be a contradiction. Cancellation is an example of the exercising of free speech. Should I not have the freedom to organize a protest of my local theater for hosting a controversial figure that I think is worthy of cancellation? Isn't that a very basic and fundamental example of free speech? Comments like yours seems to reveal a lack of a consistent principle underlying your argument. Instead, you seem to be defining free speech as some narrow window of speech that you agree with and speech outside that isn't worth protecting. Ironically it ends up making your comment a good example of the exact thing you were decrying.
- throwaway23597 4y ago
  You're reading too much into my comment. I specifically tried to stay neutral because this sort of tactical escalation could come from either side. In no way am I attempting to "define free speech as some narrow window of speech that I agree with". I'm specifically talking about people using seemingly private data to comb over people's private statements, which is a bad thing regardless of the content of those private statements.
  - slg 4y ago
    >You're reading too much into my comment. I specifically tried to stay neutral because this sort of tactical escalation could come from either side. Fair enough, but you should know that calling out cancelation as a growing flaw of society will often not be received as a neutral position. The people who complain the loudest about cancelation generally do not come from "either side". It ends up making your comment appear to have a specific political slant even if that wasn't intentional.
    - chitowneats 4y ago
      "One side often uses a particular tactic against their enemies (cancellation). You criticizing it makes you sound biased". No. The only one here who comes off as biased is you.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
I am specifically worried about the extensiveness of the surveillance and control estate globally should western liberal values lose influence and autocratic control is grandfathered access to these tools of mass oppression. I think the discussion of the present can digress into relevant but distracting political debate, but it’s impossible to assert regardless of your political bent that these tools could be extraordinarily harmful in the hands of some future society. I don’t see a way out honestly. The tools are too useful and too compelling. Any work done now on differential privacy, E2E, FHE, and other technologies can be easily reverted in a way that’s entirely transparent given the UX people expect. I feel that the rigorous maintenance of rights and freedoms as seen from a western liberal perspective is a very high energy state, and nature and human societies settle into lower energy states intrinsically.
shakezula 4y ago
I don’t understand the inclusion of cancellation in this argument. How is cancellation different from boycotting, a right long upheld by the Supreme Court with direct legal ties to freedom of speech?
- jvalencia 4y ago
  Cancellation is different in that it attempts to "boycott" an individual for holding non-majority views. If you can no longer get a job because you are vocally pro-choice for example, that's a problem. The state should protect someone's right to express their beliefs. This means that you will have pro-life / pro-choice people at the same company, and that needs to be ok. If it's not, it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
  - shakezula 4y ago
    "Boycotting", "cancelling", both seem to be democracy in action. And non-majority views is too ambiguous a definition. This would put vegans on the same side of the scale as extreme race purists.
    - jvalencia 4y ago
      But that's just it. The law needs to be able to distinguish and provide proper protections. I do not think the public at large should be making that distinction because it turns on mob rule.
  - pas 4y ago
    expressing beliefs has the risk of others updating theirs regarding whether they want to have you in their community or not. doing it anonymously was always the traditional way to workaround this effect. eg women authors picked a pen name for themselves to appear as men.

fortuna86 4y ago

What does any of that have to do with this story about Huawei and China?

throwaway23597 4y ago
I was responding to the parent comment? > What worries me is that the US itself will go in the same direction. The surveillance is already there, but it is not acted on for the most part in everyday life. But there may be a clock on how long that will last.
- fortuna86 4y ago
  Unless laws are changes, the US Government cannot demand anything from private industry.

TylerE 4y ago

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech when the majority of the public thinks you’re a raging asshole.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
Freedom of speech in private should mean free from consequences.
- TylerE 4y ago
  A public street or a tv interview isn't in privste.
- matai_kolila 4y ago
  Depends on how private. Speech is communication, which almost always necessitates more than one person, and the other people are perfectly within their own rights to provide some consequences to the speech they hear in private.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    I disagree, because this mindset leads to what happened under Mao where anything against the party was punishable and family members would turn you in.
    - matai_kolila 4y ago
      What? No. That's the government acting in response to speech, not other people expressing themselves. Your argument forgets that it's also free speech to react to something objectionable. If the government forced me to do business with you without my consent, that would be compelled association, which is more similar to how Mao's government behaved in the 50s.
- mynameisbob 4y ago
  Umm no. Unless you’re in a looked soundproof room talking to yourself speech is a social activity and no one gets to dictate how others interpret and react to your speech.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    Note that this mindset leads to what happened under Mao with children ratting out parents etc.
- Volundr 4y ago
  Should it? If I say something to someone in private that causes them to think I'm a raging asshole, should they not be free to share it with others, and should that not have consequences for me?
throwaway23597 4y ago
See, you scare me. Should private speech in the home have consequences? Speech that not only did you not mean to make public, but you didn't even realize could possibly become public? That's the road to hell for our society.
- matai_kolila 4y ago
  What even is a “private speech”? Are you worried Alexa is listening to you as you rant to yourself?
  - olyjohn 4y ago
    It's not a private speech, smartass. It's private speech. As in speech that is private. As in, when you're in the privacy of your own home, and you're expressing yourself to yourself or others, that would be private speech. Speech that is not directed to a public audience. Even when you talk to yourself in your mind, that is your own private speech.
    - matai_kolila 4y ago
      Nope, once you involve others, you involve consequences, as it is now their free speech (and free association) that often generates those consequences.
  - throwaway23597 4y ago
    > Are you worried Alexa is listening to you as you rant to yourself? Well, I mean, quite literally, it is. It's always listening to you, and that's how it knows when you say "Alexa". And IIUC all these audio recordings are sent right to AWS and stored indefinitely.
    - greesil 4y ago
      "Alexa, would you like to hear my racist tirade?
canadiantim 4y ago
I always found the people who say “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences” are the authoritarian assholes, but that may just be me.
- TylerE 4y ago
  I'm just tired of bullies claiming to be victims. It's such bullshit.
  - canadiantim 4y ago
    Same
- chasil 4y ago
  A current standard for free speech within the United States is the legal standard of "imminent lawless action." This replaced the previous standard of "clear and present danger." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  And just try saying it about all sorts of other freedoms and see how chilling it sounds: "freedom of the press is not freedom from consequences."
  - mmcgaha 4y ago
    Damn I think you just changed my opinion.
  - rnk 4y ago
    Explain what about that is chilling. If I make false and defamatory statements in a newspaper (person xyz is a criminal who stole money, committed crimes against children, whatever), if it is not true you can be sued. Is that wrong, you have hurt their public character? But it's nontrivial to get a conviction, there seems to be a reasonable balance. If you say "Elon Musk person is a horrible leader, scares me, makes bad choices, kills baby bunny rabbits for fun" he likely won't win a suit - but it would be costly to defend yourself.
janalsncm 4y ago
Doesn’t this beg the question of what exactly “consequences” means? Most people would agree free speech doesn’t mean a local restaurant has to serve you. But what about other businesses? Can dentists refuse to treat you? Can hospitals refuse to give you life saving treatments based on your political views? Many hospitals in the US are private businesses. Most people agree that social networks can kick you out. But what about ISPs? Can they refuse your business? And if ISPs can refuse your business, what about water or electricity companies? Certainly freedom of speech means freedom from certain consequences. As codified in the First Amendment it means freedom from certain legal consequences. Of course freedom of speech is broader than 1A though.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Can dentists refuse to treat you? Yes. > Can hospitals refuse to give you life saving treatments based on your political views? Ask a Catholic hospital to do an abortion. > And if ISPs can refuse your business, what about water or electricity companies? We have specific law for these sorts of scenarios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility
  - janalsncm 4y ago
    I wouldn’t consider Catholic hospitals abortions to be the same situation. They don’t give abortions to anyone. That’s not the same as refusing a particular patient because they don’t like things that patient has said in the past.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
      But there have been CVS/Walgreens pharmacists who refuse to offer birth control or the morning after pill.
      - janalsncm 4y ago
        Still, that’s not refusing service to a particular customer based on that customer’s speech. I believe that pharmacist would refuse any customer. My question is about a pharmacy which would refuse e.g. Alex Jones because of things he’s said in the past.
rhino369 4y ago
Depends on what you mean by consequences. If the consequence is people thinking you are a raging asshole sure. If it's people strongly disagreeing with you, sure. But if consequences means there is a coordinated effort among major corporations to punish and prevent you from speaking by de-platforming you or anyone who gives you a platform--that isn't freedom of speech (regardless of whether its allowed under the 1st amendment or not). US social media banned covid misinformation as defined by US health officials. Why is banning covid misinformation as defined by Chinese health officials any different? Shit, the Chinese policy isn't even that different than the US's view 18 months ago--US lockdown protestors were vilified.
astrange 4y ago
Freedom of speech has to mean freedom from consequences; consequences are the only thing you can be free from. There might be some difference between “consequences to the message” and “consequences to the speaker” but I’ve never seen anyone try to tell those apart.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Then right to free speech only protects you from government consequences.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Yes, I think that's the right way to put it. The xkcd comic people link doesn't say that though…

slg 4y ago

>A significant proportion of our society has become totally OK with censorship, cancellation This specific phrasing jumped out to me because being against both censorship and cancellation should be a contradiction. Cancellation is an example of the exercising of free speech. Should I not have the freedom to organize a protest of my local theater for hosting a controversial figure that I think is worthy of cancellation? Isn't that a very basic and fundamental example of free speech? Comments like yours seems to reveal a lack of a consistent principle underlying your argument. Instead, you seem to be defining free speech as some narrow window of speech that you agree with and speech outside that isn't worth protecting. Ironically it ends up making your comment a good example of the exact thing you were decrying.

throwaway23597 4y ago
You're reading too much into my comment. I specifically tried to stay neutral because this sort of tactical escalation could come from either side. In no way am I attempting to "define free speech as some narrow window of speech that I agree with". I'm specifically talking about people using seemingly private data to comb over people's private statements, which is a bad thing regardless of the content of those private statements.
- slg 4y ago
  >You're reading too much into my comment. I specifically tried to stay neutral because this sort of tactical escalation could come from either side. Fair enough, but you should know that calling out cancelation as a growing flaw of society will often not be received as a neutral position. The people who complain the loudest about cancelation generally do not come from "either side". It ends up making your comment appear to have a specific political slant even if that wasn't intentional.
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    "One side often uses a particular tactic against their enemies (cancellation). You criticizing it makes you sound biased". No. The only one here who comes off as biased is you.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

I am specifically worried about the extensiveness of the surveillance and control estate globally should western liberal values lose influence and autocratic control is grandfathered access to these tools of mass oppression. I think the discussion of the present can digress into relevant but distracting political debate, but it’s impossible to assert regardless of your political bent that these tools could be extraordinarily harmful in the hands of some future society. I don’t see a way out honestly. The tools are too useful and too compelling. Any work done now on differential privacy, E2E, FHE, and other technologies can be easily reverted in a way that’s entirely transparent given the UX people expect. I feel that the rigorous maintenance of rights and freedoms as seen from a western liberal perspective is a very high energy state, and nature and human societies settle into lower energy states intrinsically.

shakezula 4y ago

I don’t understand the inclusion of cancellation in this argument. How is cancellation different from boycotting, a right long upheld by the Supreme Court with direct legal ties to freedom of speech?

jvalencia 4y ago
Cancellation is different in that it attempts to "boycott" an individual for holding non-majority views. If you can no longer get a job because you are vocally pro-choice for example, that's a problem. The state should protect someone's right to express their beliefs. This means that you will have pro-life / pro-choice people at the same company, and that needs to be ok. If it's not, it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
- shakezula 4y ago
  "Boycotting", "cancelling", both seem to be democracy in action. And non-majority views is too ambiguous a definition. This would put vegans on the same side of the scale as extreme race purists.
  - jvalencia 4y ago
    But that's just it. The law needs to be able to distinguish and provide proper protections. I do not think the public at large should be making that distinction because it turns on mob rule.
- pas 4y ago
  expressing beliefs has the risk of others updating theirs regarding whether they want to have you in their community or not. doing it anonymously was always the traditional way to workaround this effect. eg women authors picked a pen name for themselves to appear as men.