3 ms·

The EFF is wrong here; they are neglecting all the Science we have today on how "Operant Conditioning" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning https

The EFF is wrong here; they are neglecting all the Science we have today on how "Operant Conditioning" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning) based on our current knowledge of Neurobiology can be used to great effect in many dimensions using various techniques. This phrase from the article; Communications platforms are not comparable to unsafe food, unsafe cars, or cigarettes, is completely wrong. Ideas spread through language/platforms can be dangerous in the physical world eg. Islamic Fundamentalism/Terrorism. While there must be freedom of speech it cannot be anything goes and must be regulated in particular for those sections of society who have not yet attained "Maturity" both biologically and psychologically viz. Children/Teens.

lolinder 2y ago
I agree on the science, they're wrong there. But I disagree that speech shouldn't be afforded more protections than unsafe physical goods. Yes, there are real dangers, but I see the danger of regulating speech as even higher. If a majority vote is all it takes to regulate away a piece of speech, then the majority will be able rapidly consolidate itself and never give way to an alternative perspective. Regulating speech allows for a temporary majority to become a permanent one, which can be very dangerous for any society. Given that risk we need to be extremely careful about any effort by governments to regulate speech, even for causes that we happen to agree with today.
- rramadass 2y ago
  I am not saying "speech shouldn't be afforded more protections than unsafe physical goods." You have to look at the context and case-by-case basis. Thus the insidious and deleterious effects of Social Media should not be disputed/argued but only the level of regulations should be debated/discussed. Free Speech is always limited eg. I should be able to say whatever i want about the President but cannot call for his Assassination (except in very rare cases like bloodthirsty dictators/warlords/etc.) Same is the case with majority vote in a democracy, the President is given certain overarching powers like veto/presidential decree etc. which allows him to overrule the majority in exceptional cases. The point here is the need to act now by imposing some basic level of regulations on Social Media and then work on fine-tuning it over time.

lolinder 2y ago

I agree on the science, they're wrong there. But I disagree that speech shouldn't be afforded more protections than unsafe physical goods. Yes, there are real dangers, but I see the danger of regulating speech as even higher. If a majority vote is all it takes to regulate away a piece of speech, then the majority will be able rapidly consolidate itself and never give way to an alternative perspective. Regulating speech allows for a temporary majority to become a permanent one, which can be very dangerous for any society. Given that risk we need to be extremely careful about any effort by governments to regulate speech, even for causes that we happen to agree with today.

rramadass 2y ago
I am not saying "speech shouldn't be afforded more protections than unsafe physical goods." You have to look at the context and case-by-case basis. Thus the insidious and deleterious effects of Social Media should not be disputed/argued but only the level of regulations should be debated/discussed. Free Speech is always limited eg. I should be able to say whatever i want about the President but cannot call for his Assassination (except in very rare cases like bloodthirsty dictators/warlords/etc.) Same is the case with majority vote in a democracy, the President is given certain overarching powers like veto/presidential decree etc. which allows him to overrule the majority in exceptional cases. The point here is the need to act now by imposing some basic level of regulations on Social Media and then work on fine-tuning it over time.