4 ms·

This is why I disagree with the free speech absolutist crowd. A lot of "speech" online isn't real humans voicing their opinions and having civilized discourse.

by saubeidl 10mo ago

This is why I disagree with the free speech absolutist crowd. A lot of "speech" online isn't real humans voicing their opinions and having civilized discourse. It's nation states and moneyed interests weaponizing our naïveté, using what are meant to be public squares as means of disseminating propaganda and dividing our societies. People arguing for unrestricted free speech online are either complicit (e.g. Musk) or naive and being taken advantage of.

entropyie 10mo ago
Indeed. This was not such an issue when everybody had their own website or blog or whatever, and you had to seek out content intentionally... It's the active intervention of an algorithmic megaphone that is causing the damage. To me this is when it stops being free speech and starts being corporate policy that needs to be regulated.
Tarsul 10mo ago
Yes. It's propaganda, not speech. Also the algorithms favor this sh*t. Also this massive generation of content floods the zone[1]. There is nothing "freedom of choice" about it if it resurfaces all the time. Upvotes/Views count disproportionally in most social media against downvotes/"not interested" (tiktok is better but even there you can't downvote enough AI-videos for them to not resurface. Probably because the algorithm isn't good enough to understand what is AI and what not, so these downvotes often don't count against AI). [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_the_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_the_zone
63282836292919 10mo ago
[flagged]
- saubeidl 10mo ago
  https://jamestown.org/russian-disinformation-targets-the-european-union/ https://jamestown.org/russian-disinformation-targets-the-eur...
- spoiler 10mo ago
  At the end of the day, we're all useful idiots at some point in our lives. I'm someone who leans more on the freedom/libertarian side and dislike what's happening in the EU. But on the other hand, I do think someone type of content shouldn't be allowed... And it gives me a bit of cognitive dissonance. Take this polish AI crap for example: I think people should be able to freely speak about these issues, and I'm not opposed to them reaching for anonymity even through AI. But on the other hand, we also don't know if this is a foreign misinformation campaign or just a politically disgruntled Pole. I'm okay with the disgruntled Pole voicing their opinion, but I'm not okay with foreign actors manipulating people's opinions.
  - jech 10mo ago
    > But on the other hand, we also don't know if this is a foreign misinformation campaign or just a politically disgruntled Pole The videos contain at least one mistake that indicates that they were written by a native speaker of Russian (the use of the word prawilny, which is a Russian word (правильный) and doesn't exist in Polish). It's circumstantial evidence, granted, but enough to point at a Russian origin, at least in the absence of further information.
TheOtherHobbes 10mo ago
Or bots.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
kevin061 10mo ago
The biggest, loudest, most powerful proponents of free speech don't actually believe in it. Musk bans and fires anyone who disagrees with him. Donald Trump rails against news articles and media companies who publish information he personally doesn't like, all while both of them blame the EU for violating a supposed free speech standard that they themselves hate, and also one the EU never really adhered to.
hattmall 10mo ago
But without free speech you run the risk of not being able to speak out against this exact type of activity. Imo this isn't a free speech issue, it's fraud, you can criminalize this type of manipulative false testimony without encroaching on freedom of speech.
- saubeidl 10mo ago
  This is exactly what EU anti disinformation campaigns are trying to fight, the same ones that get a lot of hate by free speech warriors. I think this is exactly the crux of the free speech issue - should manipulative false testimony be allowed? I'd say no, but others disagree.
armchairhacker 10mo ago
I’m more interested in how you’d restrict speech, in a way that isn’t ineffective or corrupted. Right now I think that free speech, like decentralization, should exist as a safety net. So most people use centralized platforms where bad content (e.g. this) is censored, but the open internet still exists, if only to keep the centralized platforms in line by providing alternatives if they degrade (e.g. if government propaganda gets so bad that it clearly and significantly contradicts people’s beliefs and real-life experiences).
- sznio 10mo ago
  no expectation of free speech if you use modern technology. free speech over the mail, phone, in writing, in books, in newspapers, in radio, in television, in shouting on the street but not on the internet. it's just irresponsible to allow someone to both reach millions of individuals, and be anonymous. either one, or the other.

entropyie 10mo ago

Indeed. This was not such an issue when everybody had their own website or blog or whatever, and you had to seek out content intentionally... It's the active intervention of an algorithmic megaphone that is causing the damage. To me this is when it stops being free speech and starts being corporate policy that needs to be regulated.

Tarsul 10mo ago

Yes. It's propaganda, not speech. Also the algorithms favor this sh*t. Also this massive generation of content floods the zone[1]. There is nothing "freedom of choice" about it if it resurfaces all the time. Upvotes/Views count disproportionally in most social media against downvotes/"not interested" (tiktok is better but even there you can't downvote enough AI-videos for them to not resurface. Probably because the algorithm isn't good enough to understand what is AI and what not, so these downvotes often don't count against AI). [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_the_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_the_zone

63282836292919 10mo ago

[flagged]

saubeidl 10mo ago
https://jamestown.org/russian-disinformation-targets-the-european-union/ https://jamestown.org/russian-disinformation-targets-the-eur...
spoiler 10mo ago
At the end of the day, we're all useful idiots at some point in our lives. I'm someone who leans more on the freedom/libertarian side and dislike what's happening in the EU. But on the other hand, I do think someone type of content shouldn't be allowed... And it gives me a bit of cognitive dissonance. Take this polish AI crap for example: I think people should be able to freely speak about these issues, and I'm not opposed to them reaching for anonymity even through AI. But on the other hand, we also don't know if this is a foreign misinformation campaign or just a politically disgruntled Pole. I'm okay with the disgruntled Pole voicing their opinion, but I'm not okay with foreign actors manipulating people's opinions.
- jech 10mo ago
  > But on the other hand, we also don't know if this is a foreign misinformation campaign or just a politically disgruntled Pole The videos contain at least one mistake that indicates that they were written by a native speaker of Russian (the use of the word prawilny, which is a Russian word (правильный) and doesn't exist in Polish). It's circumstantial evidence, granted, but enough to point at a Russian origin, at least in the absence of further information.

TheOtherHobbes 10mo ago

Or bots.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

kevin061 10mo ago

The biggest, loudest, most powerful proponents of free speech don't actually believe in it. Musk bans and fires anyone who disagrees with him. Donald Trump rails against news articles and media companies who publish information he personally doesn't like, all while both of them blame the EU for violating a supposed free speech standard that they themselves hate, and also one the EU never really adhered to.

hattmall 10mo ago

But without free speech you run the risk of not being able to speak out against this exact type of activity. Imo this isn't a free speech issue, it's fraud, you can criminalize this type of manipulative false testimony without encroaching on freedom of speech.

saubeidl 10mo ago
This is exactly what EU anti disinformation campaigns are trying to fight, the same ones that get a lot of hate by free speech warriors. I think this is exactly the crux of the free speech issue - should manipulative false testimony be allowed? I'd say no, but others disagree.

armchairhacker 10mo ago

I’m more interested in how you’d restrict speech, in a way that isn’t ineffective or corrupted. Right now I think that free speech, like decentralization, should exist as a safety net. So most people use centralized platforms where bad content (e.g. this) is censored, but the open internet still exists, if only to keep the centralized platforms in line by providing alternatives if they degrade (e.g. if government propaganda gets so bad that it clearly and significantly contradicts people’s beliefs and real-life experiences).

sznio 10mo ago
no expectation of free speech if you use modern technology. free speech over the mail, phone, in writing, in books, in newspapers, in radio, in television, in shouting on the street but not on the internet. it's just irresponsible to allow someone to both reach millions of individuals, and be anonymous. either one, or the other.