18 ms·

That full end-to-end story would be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The existence of the propaganda campaign and the active attempts to exfiltrat

That full end-to-end story would be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The existence of the propaganda campaign and the active attempts to exfiltrate voter data are public record and plausible enough for the FBI to have issued arrest warrants regarding the infiltrations. I'm not saying it's necessary for Russians to have stolen the election for Americans to be questioning the nature of free flow of information online. I'm saying there is more than enough of a preponderance of evidence that an attack along that vector was attempted for people to be asking reasonable questions about the harms of unfiltered information access and how it can be exploited by clever propagandists.

nradov 3y ago
Questions about the "harms" of unfiltered information access aren't reasonable. The people asking those questions are being disingenuous. They are fundamentally unprincipled and are simply looking for plausible sounding reasons to restrict speech that they don't like.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > Questions about the "harms" of unfiltered information access aren't reasonable Can you clarify why they are not reasonable? Peer threads to this one provide examples of how speech can sometimes cause harm, and how some categories of speech are already regulated for that reason. > The people asking those questions are being disingenuous I don't doubt some have a hidden agenda. But I believe from my own experience many are trying to find new common ground now that previous assumptions have been thrown into question. Twitter and Facebook, for example, aren't at all interested in regulating speech; they'd much prefer to be out of the business and continue the much easier task of "collecting attention rent by selling eyeballs to advertisers." But the messages that flowed over their networks during the January 6th attack were enough to make their leadership concerned that they could be hauled in front of Congress to testify about aiding and abetting treason. They want bright lines on this stuff because they don't want to be in prison.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Free speech doesn't cause harm, with the narrow exception of the "fighting words" doctrine. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words There was never any risk of Twitter and Facebook employees going to prison over the January 6 attack. Stop exaggerating. And I have no respect for anyone who is afraid of being called to testify to Congress. Anyone with principles should be thrilled for an opportunity to participate in the public discourse and express their thoughts in such a forum.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      Well, the fighting words doctrine, defamation, fraud, deprivation of right to vote via intentional misinformation, copyright infringement, market manipulation, child pornography... It's a short list but not an empty list. The law in the US is loathe to impose prior restraint but may punish for all manner of transgression, even when the nature of the transgression is words or images alone. > Stop exaggerating I believe I have a free-speech right to exaggerate, so I shall respectfully decline. > And I have no respect for anyone who is afraid of being called to testify to Congress. Far be it from me to try and instill a sense of respect in anyone for Silicon Valley CEOs. Or an idea they have principles. ... But how comfortable should we be with the unprincipled having this much control over what people see and read? Anyway, I'd love to continue this thread, but I've nudged up against my site-imposed quota of HN posts today. ;)
  - bigstrat2003 3y ago
    > But the messages that flowed over their networks during the January 6th attack were enough to make their leadership concerned that they could be hauled in front of Congress to testify about aiding and abetting treason. Seems like a pretty unfounded concern, given that a) treason would've had to happen and b) they would have had to be actual witting participants.

nradov 3y ago

Questions about the "harms" of unfiltered information access aren't reasonable. The people asking those questions are being disingenuous. They are fundamentally unprincipled and are simply looking for plausible sounding reasons to restrict speech that they don't like.

shadowgovt 3y ago
> Questions about the "harms" of unfiltered information access aren't reasonable Can you clarify why they are not reasonable? Peer threads to this one provide examples of how speech can sometimes cause harm, and how some categories of speech are already regulated for that reason. > The people asking those questions are being disingenuous I don't doubt some have a hidden agenda. But I believe from my own experience many are trying to find new common ground now that previous assumptions have been thrown into question. Twitter and Facebook, for example, aren't at all interested in regulating speech; they'd much prefer to be out of the business and continue the much easier task of "collecting attention rent by selling eyeballs to advertisers." But the messages that flowed over their networks during the January 6th attack were enough to make their leadership concerned that they could be hauled in front of Congress to testify about aiding and abetting treason. They want bright lines on this stuff because they don't want to be in prison.
- nradov 3y ago
  Free speech doesn't cause harm, with the narrow exception of the "fighting words" doctrine. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words There was never any risk of Twitter and Facebook employees going to prison over the January 6 attack. Stop exaggerating. And I have no respect for anyone who is afraid of being called to testify to Congress. Anyone with principles should be thrilled for an opportunity to participate in the public discourse and express their thoughts in such a forum.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Well, the fighting words doctrine, defamation, fraud, deprivation of right to vote via intentional misinformation, copyright infringement, market manipulation, child pornography... It's a short list but not an empty list. The law in the US is loathe to impose prior restraint but may punish for all manner of transgression, even when the nature of the transgression is words or images alone. > Stop exaggerating I believe I have a free-speech right to exaggerate, so I shall respectfully decline. > And I have no respect for anyone who is afraid of being called to testify to Congress. Far be it from me to try and instill a sense of respect in anyone for Silicon Valley CEOs. Or an idea they have principles. ... But how comfortable should we be with the unprincipled having this much control over what people see and read? Anyway, I'd love to continue this thread, but I've nudged up against my site-imposed quota of HN posts today. ;)
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  > But the messages that flowed over their networks during the January 6th attack were enough to make their leadership concerned that they could be hauled in front of Congress to testify about aiding and abetting treason. Seems like a pretty unfounded concern, given that a) treason would've had to happen and b) they would have had to be actual witting participants.