4 ms·
It's a delicate balance. I'm very much for freedom of speech. But it's a problem in the modern age. People use it for effectively disabling speech by using a de
by invalidname 3y ago
It's a delicate balance. I'm very much for freedom of speech. But it's a problem in the modern age. People use it for effectively disabling speech by using a denial of service attack through buckets of misinformation.
E.g. a ridiculously corrupt official just spewing misinformation about his rivals to avoid accountability. In the past the press would have been a barrier. Nixon tried to do that and failed.
Misinformation can drown out legitimate information in this situation. We need safeguards to stop that. It's super easy to see when looking at pre-Musk Twitter and the current state of X. Old twitter had terrible people on it. No doubt. The volume is now unbearable. Those facts are proven statistically and are plain to see...
Free speech is a tool that was invented in the age of the quill. We curtailed it in the past e.g. fire in a crowded theater, copyrights and defamation. It needs additional stopgaps for the modern age.
I understand the distrust in government, mine sucks... So I get that. It's a choice between bad and worse...
(edited to fix a couple of grammar mistakes)
- nradov 3y agoFree speech is not an actual problem in the modern age, or any age. The volume is bearable. I see very little misinformation in my feed. And let's not forget how pre-Musk Twitter actively suppressed accurate information at the request of the US federal government.
- invalidname 3y agoI'm sure the Rohingya people would have an issue with these assertions. Currently misinformation is disseminated by elected officials who then regurgitate it back and forth with social networks. There's now a concept of "picking what's true" which is ludicrous. People can't even agree on the facts due to the levels of misinformation. Looking at your own feed and projecting it as an absolute fact for the general public is a problematic assertion. The main problem with social networks is that people can lock themselves within a disinformation bubble that bounces the lie back and forth.
- nradov 3y agoHave you actually asked the Rohingya people what they think, or have you appointed yourself as their spokesperson? They are not suffering because of free speech. They are suffering because they live in a failed state which has multiple ongoing internal violent conflicts and which is ruled by a corrupt, incompetent junta. If they EU was serious about improving the situation there (and in other conflict zones) then they would take direct action instead of pretending to help by imposing pointless, symbolic restrictions on US-based social media companies. It's obvious that what the EU is doing here is just a political farce to convince the gullible that they're doing something rather than spending any money or taking any risks.
- invalidname 3y agoDid you ask? Trying to help is hard. See the case of Somalia. Yes, there are other worse problems. But misinformation ISN'T free speech. Just like an anti-democracy organization using democracy to cancel elections isn't democratic. You're equating speech anarchy with free speech. They are not the same.
- nradov 3y agoThe US Supreme Court and I disagree with you: speech anarchy is the same as free speech. Attempts to block misinformation inevitably turn out worse than the misinformation itself.
- invalidname 3y agoI don't live in the USA so no. The US Supreme court took both sides e.g. "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a limit on free speech by the supreme court. Copyright is upheld by the supreme court, etc.
- nradov 3y agoThe example that you're using is ridiculous and doesn't even support your point. https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-serie... I give thanks every day that I live in the USA where we have a written Bill of Rights and a Supreme Court with the courage to stand against government overreach.