4 ms·

it isn't trade-off. You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on legal free speech.

by trhway 8mo ago

ericmay 8mo ago
> it isn't trade-off. Yes it is. > You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on free speech. No I'm not. ~~~~~~ There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.
- EMIRELADERO 8mo ago
  > Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions. Sure, but this verification rubbish comes from the government.
- mindslight 8mo ago
  > There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions. You're absolving the social media companies of why they continue choosing to amplify bots and extremist content in one big "community", rather than working towards creating smaller communities that can have social trust and social regulation. That is the core perverse incentive here that actually needs to be addressed, and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.
  - ericmay 8mo ago
    I think we should just ban social media companies. If you want to create a small community walk outside and create one with your neighbors. > and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites. On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c. It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems. I am also not "going off into the weeds" because I'm just responding to the OP.
    - mindslight 8mo ago
      > I think we should just ban social media companies. Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. Not in that I want to see it reversed so the fascists currently in power can use the dynamic as a club to go after speech they don't like. But rather that I think the Internet would have developed healthier without it, and what it has enabled. > On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c. You seem to be pigeonholing all of the problems into one bag. "Hatred" does not go away with real-name policies. > It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems. No, I am pointing out that you're approaching this from the wrong angle. The core dynamic of the Internet has always been "don't trust what you read on the Internet". The lack of needing permission to communicate is precisely what has enabled so much innovation. Defining context is the responsibility of higher layers. What changed from that core dynamic? The social media companies showed up, took unvetted and unfiltered streams of content, and presented them to the public as trustworthy finished products. "We'll figure out a better system than naive voting later". Well later never came, did it? At least Slashdot tried. Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right?
      - ericmay 8mo ago
        > Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right? I think I am just more aligned with, for example, the French president on his criticisms: https://archive.ph/JMrd4 https://archive.ph/JMrd4 (archive link to avoid Bloomberg paywall) "“Having no clue about how their algorithm is made, how it’s tested, trained and where it will guide you — the democratic consequences of this bias could be huge,” Macron said Wednesday in New Delhi. “Some of them claim to be in favor of free speech — OK, we are in favor of free algorithms — totally transparent,” Macron said. “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.” I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service, not exercising a constitutional right. > Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. I would but it's not up to me. I am not sure Section 230 was a mistake, at least in principle. But if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you. Which the government has access to...
- trhway 8mo ago
  The chilling effect you’re supporting leads exactly to thriving of bots and propagandists while suppressing dissenting voices of regular people. Just look at any country where it is already fully or partially implemented.
  - ericmay 8mo ago
    I don't support any chilling effects. > leads exactly to thriving of bots and propagandists while suppressing dissenting voices of regular people. This is the current state, today, with anonymity. > Just look at any country where it is already fully or partially implemented. Which ones?
    - trhway 8mo ago
      >This is the current state, today, with anonymity. whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people. > Which ones? Russia for example. The sites where verification is implemented has become pro-government bot cesspools. Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore. I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous?
      - ericmay 8mo ago
        > whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people. I don't think so. It may moderate them, which given our political environment is likely to be a good thing. > Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore. Well I don't know what the specific example is. I've seen pro/anti all sorts of things on LinkedIn and when I do I unfollow or find another way to hide the content. But it's also not super engaging. Why is that? Because, well, firstly LinkedIn is a heaping pile of garbage, but also because money, careers, and more are at stake. If you find a pro/anti anything post and start saying really crazy stuff, yea someone might tell your employer about it. How LinkedIn moderates its discussions I think is a separate issue, and, frankly, is yet another demonstration that these platforms are simply not "free speech" and using them means you agree to the terms of service which allows them to moderate how they see fit. When folks complain about these algorithms or the wrong group buying their favorite platform, there is a very easy and simple solution which is to just stop using them and delete your account. Then, nobody is policing your speech. > I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous? I think voting should be anonymous, but you should have identification for voting issued by the state. It's an exercise of your constitutional right, and there are plenty of mechanical and morally good reasons for it. Yelling the most obscene shit imaginable on TikTok is not even in the same ballpark and is not exercising a Constitutional right.
- pibaker 8mo ago
  Are you a Russian bot seeking to destroy free speech, one of the foundations of Western democracy and civilization? How are we supposed to know? Show us your passport and one piece of recent utility bill to prove your hard earned right to post shit on the Internet.
  - ericmay 8mo ago
    Ha. Well, you can read my post history. I routinely advocate that the United States go wipe out the Russian military in Ukraine and annihilate its capability to assault Ukraine and assert our hegemonic status. You might classify me as a Russia hawk. I don't use social media besides I guess LinkedIn, but I don't think that platform is material here. Given that I don't really use social media, in what way is my free speech destroyed? One of the fundamentally incorrect assumptions people make, as you are doing now, is that they assume that the mechanism (social media in this case) is what defines whether or not you are able to exercise free speech, but you will fail to produce a coherent argument when it comes to people such as myself who don't use the platforms. I also enjoy watching folks turn themselves into a pickle defending the actions that the EU and UK are taking to curb free speech. These actions range from age verification, in, say Australia, to supposed hate speech curbs in the UK (you mentioned western civilization and defending free speech in that context, not me) to a number of actions taken by the EU or EU member states that also curb free speech. If you post something pro-Nazi in Germany on Facebook you'll go to jail. That's curbing your right to free speech. The topic of this thread here is of course Arizona, but the US actually is far more permissive in speech than any other western country. Maybe you and others should spend more time focusing on other western nations, generally speaking. > Show us your passport and one piece of recent utility bill to prove your hard earned right to post shit on the Internet. When HN implements the feature, sure. For now I use my real name. How about you?

it isn't trade-off. You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on legal free speech.

by trhway 8mo ago

it isn't trade-off. You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on legal free speech.

> it isn't trade-off. Yes it is. > You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on free speech. No I'm not. ~~~~~~ There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.

EMIRELADERO 8mo ago
> Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions. Sure, but this verification rubbish comes from the government.
mindslight 8mo ago
> There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions. You're absolving the social media companies of why they continue choosing to amplify bots and extremist content in one big "community", rather than working towards creating smaller communities that can have social trust and social regulation. That is the core perverse incentive here that actually needs to be addressed, and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.
- ericmay 8mo ago
  I think we should just ban social media companies. If you want to create a small community walk outside and create one with your neighbors. > and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites. On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c. It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems. I am also not "going off into the weeds" because I'm just responding to the OP.
  - mindslight 8mo ago
    > I think we should just ban social media companies. Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. Not in that I want to see it reversed so the fascists currently in power can use the dynamic as a club to go after speech they don't like. But rather that I think the Internet would have developed healthier without it, and what it has enabled. > On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c. You seem to be pigeonholing all of the problems into one bag. "Hatred" does not go away with real-name policies. > It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems. No, I am pointing out that you're approaching this from the wrong angle. The core dynamic of the Internet has always been "don't trust what you read on the Internet". The lack of needing permission to communicate is precisely what has enabled so much innovation. Defining context is the responsibility of higher layers. What changed from that core dynamic? The social media companies showed up, took unvetted and unfiltered streams of content, and presented them to the public as trustworthy finished products. "We'll figure out a better system than naive voting later". Well later never came, did it? At least Slashdot tried. Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right?
    - ericmay 8mo ago
      > Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right? I think I am just more aligned with, for example, the French president on his criticisms: https://archive.ph/JMrd4 https://archive.ph/JMrd4 (archive link to avoid Bloomberg paywall) "“Having no clue about how their algorithm is made, how it’s tested, trained and where it will guide you — the democratic consequences of this bias could be huge,” Macron said Wednesday in New Delhi. “Some of them claim to be in favor of free speech — OK, we are in favor of free algorithms — totally transparent,” Macron said. “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.” I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service, not exercising a constitutional right. > Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. I would but it's not up to me. I am not sure Section 230 was a mistake, at least in principle. But if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you. Which the government has access to...
trhway 8mo ago
The chilling effect you’re supporting leads exactly to thriving of bots and propagandists while suppressing dissenting voices of regular people. Just look at any country where it is already fully or partially implemented.
- ericmay 8mo ago
  I don't support any chilling effects. > leads exactly to thriving of bots and propagandists while suppressing dissenting voices of regular people. This is the current state, today, with anonymity. > Just look at any country where it is already fully or partially implemented. Which ones?
  - trhway 8mo ago
    >This is the current state, today, with anonymity. whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people. > Which ones? Russia for example. The sites where verification is implemented has become pro-government bot cesspools. Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore. I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous?
    - ericmay 8mo ago
      > whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people. I don't think so. It may moderate them, which given our political environment is likely to be a good thing. > Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore. Well I don't know what the specific example is. I've seen pro/anti all sorts of things on LinkedIn and when I do I unfollow or find another way to hide the content. But it's also not super engaging. Why is that? Because, well, firstly LinkedIn is a heaping pile of garbage, but also because money, careers, and more are at stake. If you find a pro/anti anything post and start saying really crazy stuff, yea someone might tell your employer about it. How LinkedIn moderates its discussions I think is a separate issue, and, frankly, is yet another demonstration that these platforms are simply not "free speech" and using them means you agree to the terms of service which allows them to moderate how they see fit. When folks complain about these algorithms or the wrong group buying their favorite platform, there is a very easy and simple solution which is to just stop using them and delete your account. Then, nobody is policing your speech. > I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous? I think voting should be anonymous, but you should have identification for voting issued by the state. It's an exercise of your constitutional right, and there are plenty of mechanical and morally good reasons for it. Yelling the most obscene shit imaginable on TikTok is not even in the same ballpark and is not exercising a Constitutional right.
pibaker 8mo ago
Are you a Russian bot seeking to destroy free speech, one of the foundations of Western democracy and civilization? How are we supposed to know? Show us your passport and one piece of recent utility bill to prove your hard earned right to post shit on the Internet.
- ericmay 8mo ago
  Ha. Well, you can read my post history. I routinely advocate that the United States go wipe out the Russian military in Ukraine and annihilate its capability to assault Ukraine and assert our hegemonic status. You might classify me as a Russia hawk. I don't use social media besides I guess LinkedIn, but I don't think that platform is material here. Given that I don't really use social media, in what way is my free speech destroyed? One of the fundamentally incorrect assumptions people make, as you are doing now, is that they assume that the mechanism (social media in this case) is what defines whether or not you are able to exercise free speech, but you will fail to produce a coherent argument when it comes to people such as myself who don't use the platforms. I also enjoy watching folks turn themselves into a pickle defending the actions that the EU and UK are taking to curb free speech. These actions range from age verification, in, say Australia, to supposed hate speech curbs in the UK (you mentioned western civilization and defending free speech in that context, not me) to a number of actions taken by the EU or EU member states that also curb free speech. If you post something pro-Nazi in Germany on Facebook you'll go to jail. That's curbing your right to free speech. The topic of this thread here is of course Arizona, but the US actually is far more permissive in speech than any other western country. Maybe you and others should spend more time focusing on other western nations, generally speaking. > Show us your passport and one piece of recent utility bill to prove your hard earned right to post shit on the Internet. When HN implements the feature, sure. For now I use my real name. How about you?