3 ms·

Hire people to enforce the "good speak" and not free speech. How does no one see a problem with politicians deciding what can be said and not said or what can h

Hire people to enforce the "good speak" and not free speech. How does no one see a problem with politicians deciding what can be said and not said or what can have scary flags on it in the course of a political discussion? Has literally no one paid attention to the dystopian sci-fi that's been put out for the last hundred years. Most of that sci-fi was based upon communist regimes and what they were doing at the time. The Free world has forgot that freedom was the core principle of the Free world.

fibonacci01 3y ago
To be honest, I don't think the intention is to limit free speech in that sense. It's more about highlighting occasions when people make statements that are demonstrably untrue. The Internet is awash with information and it's more challenging than ever for people to seperate fact from fiction - and bad actors are exploiting this. So it seems reasonable to me to attempt to solve this problem.
- elmerfud 3y ago
  The problem is when you say demonstratably untrue most of the things that I see flagged it largely depends on your perception and point of view. Because it's not arguing over scientific facts that can be proven, nor is it theories or hypotheses that have yet to have been found false. It comes down to statements that depend on context. Because politicians make statements all the time that depending on the context you're hearing it in could be false in your mind but the context that they're saying it in could be absolutely true to them. It is very rarely a direct outright lie. This is the problem when you're hiring censors to flag contextual information. The solution you're wanting is so ripe for being corrupted and being corrupted in a way that is unknown and unknowable. You're literally allowing politicians to determine what is considered truth and removing the individuals ability to understand or decide. I really going to need a lot more details about how censorship is a reasonable attempt to solve speech you disagree with. Because the foundation of Western ideals with free speech and government powers come from the common well of the people (and not the king or the aristocracy) is in direct contradiction with this idea of goodspeak. Because those making false claims or twisting words have always been with us and will always be with us. Saying we're willing to accept some poison because we're unable to exercise our free thoughts as individuals boggles my mind. Once you start taking that poison that the aristocracy will decide for you there is no limit to how much they will feed you. We are failing to learn the lessons of History.
  - fibonacci01 3y ago
    I think it's a thought provoking response. We're clearly dealing with a highly complex problem with no easy solution. One part that of your response that I'd like to focus on: 'Because those making false claims or twisting words have always been with us and will always be with us. ' I think this is true but hasn't the growth of the Internet and social media networks fundamentally changed the nature of the problem? Truth twisters and liers can successfully spread their lies at an exponentially faster rate than at any other period in history. Should this change our approach when attempting to discredit these people?
    - elmerfud 3y ago
      My response to that is that truth-twisters, through most of human history, have been able to spread their information at the same speed as those who speak the truth. Considering recent history though there is one important thing that many people have forgotten about because we've lived with it for so long. That is the development of radio and the subsequent regulation of radio. This was actually a very big topic 100 years ago that requiring a license to broadcast on the radio and the subsequent regulations about what could be broadcast was a fundamental violation of free speech. Ultimately the argumentation that the spectrum is a limited supply and therefore there needed to be a means in which to distribute it fairly won out, but along with that idea of distributing a resource in what was supposed to be a fair manner came along all sorts of free speech regulations as well. There was the idea of what you could and couldn't say over radio because it was a public venue. Those restrictions persist even to this day in order to receive your license to broadcast even though those same restrictions were shot down in public venues such as a traditional public forum. So we have fundamentally lived with this idea that we have an aristocracy controlling the speech that the masses are able to receive. And everyone alive today has lived in a world where that is true. Right now with the advent of these modern communication methods and the internet bandwidth is effectively an unlimited resource. Yet the original article that spawned this topic is still the aristocracy now trying to put in regulations saying what is allowed to be spoken and what is not allowed to be spoken. That's my fundamental problem here is that we have the ability to shift back to everyone being able to speak and people choosing who they listen to. Yet those in charge do not want the people to be able to choose and they don't want to have their ideas challenged in a level arena where they have to either challenge back or dispute what was said. Because again I'm back to the original thing of most of what is flagged as false information is really contextually false not absolutely false. Things that are absolutely false are easy to dispute and dismiss for most people. Contextually false information is not because it depends on your worldview on what you're willing to accept and your worldview on what the predictions of the outcomes you're expecting to have. It is absolutely a scary power to think that some unknown and unaccountable body is able to determine the information that's allowed to be disseminated. We already have that to a certain extent but the internet has allowed information to open up both good and bad. We can all just look back only a few years in history from any point in our lives and we can see how when those in charge begin to push a narrative to the exclusion of all other narratives this ends badly. We are not ruled by altruistic benevolent leaders. I wish we were but we will never be because we're ruled by other people who are selfish and ambitious. I certainly wouldn't want to be ruled by some AI that is simply looking at the greatest good for the greatest number as that is a horrifically scary idea. So I think fundamentally we must accept that the information war should be waged in a level playing field and put our trust in the people. It has not been a level playing it has not been a level playing field for a very long time and it still isn't completely level because people congregate around a certain platforms that already limit the information based upon their own ideologies. But it is a lot closer than it has ever been in my lifetime or any living persons lifetime.

fibonacci01 3y ago

To be honest, I don't think the intention is to limit free speech in that sense. It's more about highlighting occasions when people make statements that are demonstrably untrue. The Internet is awash with information and it's more challenging than ever for people to seperate fact from fiction - and bad actors are exploiting this. So it seems reasonable to me to attempt to solve this problem.

elmerfud 3y ago
The problem is when you say demonstratably untrue most of the things that I see flagged it largely depends on your perception and point of view. Because it's not arguing over scientific facts that can be proven, nor is it theories or hypotheses that have yet to have been found false. It comes down to statements that depend on context. Because politicians make statements all the time that depending on the context you're hearing it in could be false in your mind but the context that they're saying it in could be absolutely true to them. It is very rarely a direct outright lie. This is the problem when you're hiring censors to flag contextual information. The solution you're wanting is so ripe for being corrupted and being corrupted in a way that is unknown and unknowable. You're literally allowing politicians to determine what is considered truth and removing the individuals ability to understand or decide. I really going to need a lot more details about how censorship is a reasonable attempt to solve speech you disagree with. Because the foundation of Western ideals with free speech and government powers come from the common well of the people (and not the king or the aristocracy) is in direct contradiction with this idea of goodspeak. Because those making false claims or twisting words have always been with us and will always be with us. Saying we're willing to accept some poison because we're unable to exercise our free thoughts as individuals boggles my mind. Once you start taking that poison that the aristocracy will decide for you there is no limit to how much they will feed you. We are failing to learn the lessons of History.
- fibonacci01 3y ago
  I think it's a thought provoking response. We're clearly dealing with a highly complex problem with no easy solution. One part that of your response that I'd like to focus on: 'Because those making false claims or twisting words have always been with us and will always be with us. ' I think this is true but hasn't the growth of the Internet and social media networks fundamentally changed the nature of the problem? Truth twisters and liers can successfully spread their lies at an exponentially faster rate than at any other period in history. Should this change our approach when attempting to discredit these people?
  - elmerfud 3y ago
    My response to that is that truth-twisters, through most of human history, have been able to spread their information at the same speed as those who speak the truth. Considering recent history though there is one important thing that many people have forgotten about because we've lived with it for so long. That is the development of radio and the subsequent regulation of radio. This was actually a very big topic 100 years ago that requiring a license to broadcast on the radio and the subsequent regulations about what could be broadcast was a fundamental violation of free speech. Ultimately the argumentation that the spectrum is a limited supply and therefore there needed to be a means in which to distribute it fairly won out, but along with that idea of distributing a resource in what was supposed to be a fair manner came along all sorts of free speech regulations as well. There was the idea of what you could and couldn't say over radio because it was a public venue. Those restrictions persist even to this day in order to receive your license to broadcast even though those same restrictions were shot down in public venues such as a traditional public forum. So we have fundamentally lived with this idea that we have an aristocracy controlling the speech that the masses are able to receive. And everyone alive today has lived in a world where that is true. Right now with the advent of these modern communication methods and the internet bandwidth is effectively an unlimited resource. Yet the original article that spawned this topic is still the aristocracy now trying to put in regulations saying what is allowed to be spoken and what is not allowed to be spoken. That's my fundamental problem here is that we have the ability to shift back to everyone being able to speak and people choosing who they listen to. Yet those in charge do not want the people to be able to choose and they don't want to have their ideas challenged in a level arena where they have to either challenge back or dispute what was said. Because again I'm back to the original thing of most of what is flagged as false information is really contextually false not absolutely false. Things that are absolutely false are easy to dispute and dismiss for most people. Contextually false information is not because it depends on your worldview on what you're willing to accept and your worldview on what the predictions of the outcomes you're expecting to have. It is absolutely a scary power to think that some unknown and unaccountable body is able to determine the information that's allowed to be disseminated. We already have that to a certain extent but the internet has allowed information to open up both good and bad. We can all just look back only a few years in history from any point in our lives and we can see how when those in charge begin to push a narrative to the exclusion of all other narratives this ends badly. We are not ruled by altruistic benevolent leaders. I wish we were but we will never be because we're ruled by other people who are selfish and ambitious. I certainly wouldn't want to be ruled by some AI that is simply looking at the greatest good for the greatest number as that is a horrifically scary idea. So I think fundamentally we must accept that the information war should be waged in a level playing field and put our trust in the people. It has not been a level playing it has not been a level playing field for a very long time and it still isn't completely level because people congregate around a certain platforms that already limit the information based upon their own ideologies. But it is a lot closer than it has ever been in my lifetime or any living persons lifetime.